Full text of "The humiliation of Christ in its physical, ethical, and official aspects"

See other formats

Ipre6entc5 to
of tbe

XHntvcreit^ of ^Toronto

Dr. Malcolm J, Wilson

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2008 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/2edhumiliationof00brucuoft

'-^^^-^c^.^^

a^^^^y

4?.

-^•^- ^/A^

THE HUMILIATION
OF CHRIST

IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND
OFFICIAL ASPECTS.

Eljt &ixt\i &txm of t|^e Cunnmflfjam SLectuces.

ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AND NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS,
FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW,

Author of '■'■The Parabolic Teaching of Christ,^* ^'Miraculous Element
itt the Gospels, ^^ etc., etc.

SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED.

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON,

714 BROADWAY,

MDCCCLXXXIX.

St. Johni-and Stereotype Foundrv,
St. Johnland. L. I.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In issuing a new edition of The Humiliation of Christ, I
desire gratefully to acknowledge the appreciative spirit in
which a very imperfect attempt to discuss a difficult subject
of great importance was received by the theological public.
In this edition scarcely any alteration has been made in the
text of the Lectures which appeared in the first edition.
But a new Lecture has been added, the Fifth in the present
volume, on Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person,
which completes my original design. In this Lecture I
have utilized the notes which appeared in the Appendix
of the former edition on the Ideal-Man Theory of Christ" s
Person, and on the title " Son of man,'' replacing them by
new notes on other topics. I have also in the same Lec-
ture embodied the substance of an article on Naturalistic
Views of Christ's Person, which appeared in the British
and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1879. For the
benefit of readers not familiar with the Greek and German
languages I have given English translations of extracts
from these tongues occurring in the Appendix, along with
the original. I have not thought it necessary to follow the
same course with extracts in notes at the foot of the page
in the body of the work, because the drift of all such ex-
tracts is given in the text, so that the English reader loses
nothing, except the power of verifying the accuracy of my
representations. It was simply for the purpose of such
verification that the extracts were g^iven. I trust that

iv Preface,

these additions will have the effect of rendering the book
more useful and acceptable. If I have not made more ex-
tensive alterations, it is not for want of a deep sense of the
defects of my performance. If there are passages in the
volume which do not satisfy the mind of the reader, they
probably still less satisfy the mind of the writer. And yet
I am not sure that if I were to try I could make them bet-
ter. Let me express the hope that, in spite of defects,
these studies may promote growth in the knowledge of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by their very short-
comings stir up others to handle the high theme more
worthily.

The Author.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I

CHRISTOLOGICAL AXIOMS.

The Purpose Explained,

The Doctrine of tiie States in Dogmatic Systems,

The Kenotic School,

The Advantages of the Method,

The Axioms difficult to fix, .

The Previous Question,

Phil. ii. 5-9 explained,

The Axioms thence deduced,

Christ's Humiliation in Epistle to the Hebrews,

Doctrine of the Homoi'isia there taught.

The Humiliation a Glorification,

Two additional Axioms,

Plan of the Course, ....

4
6

8
10

25
27

30
36
37

LECTURE IL

THE PATRISTIC CHRISTOLOGY.

Formula of Chalcedon,

Apollinarian Theory of Christ's Person,

Criticism of the Theory,

Nestorian Controversy,

Cyril on the Kenosis,

Theodoret on the Kenosis,

Cyril on Christ's Ignorance,

Eutychianism,

Leo's Letter to Flavian,

The Dreary Period of Christology,

John of Damascus, .

Thomas Aquinas,

New Ideas in the Siimnia,

Christ both Coviprehensor and Viator,

45
48

51
54

55
60

63
69

74
75
82

Contents.

LECTURE III.

THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHRISTOLOGIES.

Origin of the Controversy,

Stages of the Controversy,

The Christology of John Brentz,

The Christology of Martin Chemnitz,

The Formula of Concord,

Lutheran Christology criticised,

The Reformed Christology, .

The Reformed Christology criticised,

15y the Logos through His Spirit,

Double Consciousness or Double Life ?

Realism of Reformed Christology, .

Zanchius and Hulsius on Christ's Ignorance,

The Homousia in Reformed Christology,

83
84
86
96

105

107

115
121

125
127

I3G

130
133

LECTURE IV.

THE MODERN KENOTIC THEORIES.

Relation of these Theories to the Old Christologies,

Zinzeiidorf Father of Modern Kenosis,

Four Types distinguished.

The Theory of Thomasius, .

Theory of Gess,

Theory of Ebrard, .

Theory of Martensen,

Criticism of these Theories, .

134

137
139
139
145
153
160
164

LECTURE V.

MODERN HUMANISTIC THEORIES OF CHRIST'S PERSON.

Classification of, .

Thoroughgoing Naturalism, .

Ideal -Man Theory— Schleiermacher,

.Sentimental Naturalism— Keim,

Nondescript Eclectic Naturalism — Haweis,

Ideal-Man Theory— Beyschlag,

Conclusion of the Survey,

IQ4

lg6
207
2og
21S
223
235

Contents.

LECTURE VI.

CHRIST THE SUBJECT OF TEMPTATION AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT.

Physical Infirmities a Source of Temptation,

Hilary denied the Physical Infirmities,

Hilary's Apologists, ,

Cause of Hilary's Error,

Adoptianist View of Christ's Humanity,

Menken and Irving taught same Views,

Christ's relation lo Disease and Death,

Temptation and Sinlessness,

Fotuit nofi and non pohdt, .

Christ's Moral Development,

Christ perfected, how ?

Christ's Priesthood, when begun ?

Is a Sinless Development possible ;

242
247
250
251

258

264
269

274

276

280

2S5

LECTURE vn.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS OFFICIAL ASPECT.

Christ a Servant, ....

Christ's Humiliation as an Apostle, .

Socinian Theory of Salvation,

Christ's Humiliation as a Priest,

The Sanctifier one wiih the Sanctified,

Sympathy a Source of Suffering,

Sympathy Theory of Atonement,

Christ, as a Priest, a Representative; as Victim, a Substitute,

Theory of Redemption by Sample, .

Mystic and Legal Aspects of Atonement compatible.

Were Christ's Sufferings penal,

M'Leod Campbell's Theory,

Bushnell's Latest Viev/s, ....

Manifold Wisdom of God in Redemption, .

Justice and Love both satisfied,

Ritschl and Arnold on the Leading Idea of the Bible,

Christ's Fellowship with His Father uninterrupted.

Under Divine Wrath during whole State of Humiliation,

Did Christ suffer Eternal Death ? .

Acceptilation Theory,

Elements of Value in the Atonement,

Scripture Representations of Christ's Sufferings,

Summary Formula, ....

Philippi's Equation, ....

Theories of Atonement classified.

291
294
298
301
301
304
305
309
311
3>7
318
319
322
326
328
332
335
337
341
343
344
347
348
349
352

viii Contents.

APPENDIX.

Lect. I. Note a.— On Phil. ii. 6-8, ..... 359

Lect. II. Note A. — Extracts from Cyril on Christ's Ignorance, . . 36S

Lect. III. Note A. — Connection between Lutheran Christology and the

Sacramentarian Controversy, . . . 375

,, Note B. — Tubingen-Giessen Controversy concerning Krypsis

and Kenosis, ..... 376

,, Note C— Schneckenburger on Connection between Lutheran

Christology and Modern Speculative Christology, 380

,, Note D.— Schweitzer on Reformed Christology, . . 382

,, Note E. — Reformed Views of the Impersonality, . . 384

Lect. IV. Note A. — Kenotic Literature belonging to Thomasian Type, . 388

,, Note B. — Kenotic Literature belonging to Gessian Type, . 396

,, Note C. — Ebrard's Prefaces to his Works, . . . 413

,, Note D. — Ebrard's Solutions of Speculative Christological

Problems, ...... 414

,, Note E. — Kenotic Literature belonging to Martensen Type, . 419

,, N(rrE F. — The Christology of Zinzendorf, . . . 425

,, Note G.- Cyril on Metamorphic Kenosis, . . . 429

Lect. VI. Note A. — On the Temperament of Christ, . . . 430.

,, Note B. — Views of Naturalistic Theologians on "the Flesh," . 431

,, Note C. — Socinus on the Priesthood of Christ, . . . 437

Lect. VII. Note A. — The Pauline Doctrine of Atonement, . . . 439

,, Note E. — Rupert of Duytz on Christ as a Penitent, . . 442

,, Note C. — Reformed and Lutheran Opinions on the Question,

Did Christ suffer Spiritual and Eternal Death ? . 443
,, Note D. — St. Bernard on the Greatness of Christ's Sufferings,

and its Cause, ..... 447

,, Note E. — ^Jonathan Edwards on the Sense in which Christ

endured Divine Wrath, .... 449

INDEX 451

LECTURE I.

CHRISTOLOGICAL AXIOMS.

I PURPOSE in the following lectures to employ the teaching
of Scripture, concerning the humiliation of the Son of God,
as an aid in the formation of just views on some aspects of
the doctrine of Christ's person, experience, and work, and
as a guide in the criticism of various Christological and
Soteriological theories. The task I enter on is arduous
and delicate. It is arduous, because it demands at least
a tolerable acquaintance, at first hand as far as possible,
with an extensive literature of ancient, modern, and recenit
origin, the recent alone being sufficiently ample to occupy
the leisure of a pastor for years. It is delicate, because
the subject, while of vital interest in a religious point of
view, is also theologically abstruse. The way of truth is
narrow here, and through ignorance or inadvertence one
may easily fall into error, while desiring to maintain, and
even honestly believing that he is maintaining, the catholic
faith. It has, indeed, sometimes been asserted that it is
impossible to avoid error on the subject of the person of
Christ, all known or conceivable theories oscillating be-
tween Ebionitism and Doketism.^ This, it may be hoped,
is the exaggeration of persons not themselves believers in
the catholic doctrine of our Lord's divinity; yet it is an
exaggeration in which there is so much truth, that it is
difficult to enter on a discussion of questions relating to
that great theme without conscious fear and trembling.

' I venture to print the words docetism and docetic with k instead of c (doketism,
doketic), following the example of Mr. Grote, who in his History of Greece thus
renders all Greek names in which k occurs into English, e.g. Sokrates instead of
Socrates. One objection to the spelling docetism is, that to ill-informed minds
it may suggest a derivation from doceo instead of from doxeoo. The terms doketism
and doketic apply to that view of our Lord's person which makes His human
nature and life a mere appearance. \

2 The Humiliation of Christ.

Yet, on the other hand, no one can discuss to any purpose
these questions in a timid spirit. Successful treatment
demands not only reverence and caution, but audacity.
Without boldness, both in faith and in thought, it is
impossible to rise to the grandeur of the truth in Christ,
as set forth in Scripture. Courage is required even for
believing in the Incarnation; and still more for the scien-
tific discussion thereof. What can one do, then, but
proceed with firm step, trusting to the gracious guidance
of God; expecting, in the words of St. Hilary,^ that "He
may incite the beginnings of this trembling undertaking,
confirm them with advancing progress, and call the writer
to fellowship with the spirit of prophets and apostles, that
he may understand their sayings in the sense in which they
spoke them, and follow up the right use of words with the
same conceptions of things " .''

The attempt I now propose to make is beset with
additional difficulty, arising out of its comparative novelty.
It has not been the practice of theological writers to assign
to the category of the states of Christ, or of the state of
humiliation in particular, the dominant position which it
is to occupy in the present course of lectures. In most
dogmatic systems, doubtless, there is a chapter devoted
to the locus, Dc Statu Christi; but in some instances
k forms a meagre appendix to the doctrines of Christ's per-
son, or of His work, which might be dispensed with;^ in
other cases it is a mere framework, within which are included
in summary form the leading facts of our Lord's history
as recorded in the Gospels;^ while in a third class of cases
it serves the purpose of an apology or defence for a foregone
Christological conclusion.* Exclusive study of the older

' De Trin. lib. i. 38. The style of this Father is so obscure that it is scarcely
warrantable to quote from him without giving the original. His words are: " Ex-
pectamus ergo, ut trepide hujus coepti exordia incites, et profectu accrescente con-
firmes, et ad consortium vel prophetalis vel apostolici spiritus voces; ut dicta
eorum non alio quam i^isi locuti sunt sensu apprehendamus, verborumque propri-
etates iisdem rerum sigiiificalionibus exsequamur."

* In Turretine, the chapter " De Duplici Christi Statu" scarcely occupies two
pages. Calvin and the older Reformed dogmatists make no use of the category
at all. 2 So in Heidegger, Corpus theologiae, locus xviii.

< :So with the Lutheran didnes, concerning whom Strauss justly remarks {Glau-
bensiehre, vol. ii. 139), that they used the distinction of a twofold state, partly to

Christological Axioms. 3

dogmatists would tend to discourage the idea of com-
mencing a discussion on Christology with the doctrine of
Exinanition as a mere conceit; or, to speak more correctly,
it would probably prevent such a thought from ever arising
in the mind. And yet the discriminating study of these
very authors shows that the truths relating to the humil-
iation of Christ have exercised a more extensive influence
on the doctrines of Christ's person and work than the bare
contents of the locus De Statu CJiristi would lead one to
suppose. This is especially manifest in the case of the-
ologians belonging to the Reformed confession, whose whole
views of Christ's person and work have been largely formed
under the influence of the important principle of the like-
ness of Christ's humanity in nature and experience to
that of other men.^ Instances are even not wanting among
the Reformed theologians of treatises on the Incarnation,
commencing with a careful endeavour to fix the meaning
of the locus classicns bearing on the subject of our Lord's
humiliation, that, viz., in the Epistle to the Philippians.^
Lutheran divines, on the other hand, constructed their
Christology in utter defiance of the doctrine of humiliation,
making the Incarnation, in its idea, consist in a deification
of humanity rather than in a descent of God into humanity,
and investing the human nature of Christ with all divine
attributes, even with such metaphysical ones as are com-
monly regarded and described as incommunicable. But
even in their case our category took revenge for the neg-
lect it experienced at their hands, by compelling them,
out of regard to facts and to the end of the Incarnation,
to take down again their carefully constructed Christ-
ological edifice; the chapter on Exinanition being in effect
an attempt to bring the fantastic humanity of Christ back
to reality and nature, down from the clouds to the solid

complete, partly to cover, their dogma of the commimicatio idiomatnin. In Ger-
hard's Loci, cap. x.-xiii. of locus iv. (De Persona et Officio Chrisli) treat of the
communlcatio idiomatnin in general, and in its particular forms; and cap. xiv. treats
De Statu exinanitionis et exaltntionis.

' Called in theological language the Homoiisia {6i-ioov6xa}.

2 E.g. Zanchius, De Incnrnatione filii Dei. Zanchins was a contemporary of
the authors of the Formula Concordiae, and wrote a defence of the Admomtio
Christiana — the Reformed reply to that document.

4 The Humiliation of Christ.

earth; an attempt which, as we shall see, was far from
being perfectly successful.

While the importance of keeping ever in view the doc-
trine of the states can only be inferred from the internal
character of the old Christologies, in spite of the subor-
dinate place assigned thereto in the formal structure
of theological systems, it is, on the other hand, a matter
of distinct consciousness with more recent writers on
Christological themes. In passing from the system-
builders of the seventeenth century to the theologians of
the nineteenth, one is emboldened to trust the instinct
which tells him that the category of the states is not merely
entitled to have some sort of recognition in theology out
of deference to the prominence given to it in Scripture,
but is a point of view from which the whole doctrine con-
cerning Christ's person and work may be advantageously
surveyed. The method now contemplated has in effect
been adopted by a whole school of modern theologians,
who have made the idea of the Kenosis the basis of their
Christological inquiries. The various Kenotic theories
emanating from this school are, as we shall see, by no
means criticism-proof; but their authors have at least done
one good service to Christology, by insisting that no
theory of Christ's Person can be regarded as satisfactory
which is not able to assign some real meaning to their
watchword, in relation to the divine side of that Person.
The legitimacy and the importance of the proposed method
of inquiry have also been recognised by a distinguished
German theologian who was not an adherent of the Ken-
otic school, his sympathies being with the old Reformed
Christology, and whose opinion on such a matter must
command the respect of all. I allude to Schneckenburger,
author of the instructive work entitled, Comparative Exhib-
ition of the Lutheran and the Reformed Doctrinal Systems^
one of many valuable treatises on Christological and other

' Vergleichende Darstellung des Liitherischen tmd Reformirten Lehrbegriffs.
This work was published after the author's death in 1855, the MSS. being pre-
pared for publication by GUder, a pupil of Schneckenburger's, who has prefixed
to the work an interesting discussion on the question as to the origin of the differ-
ence in the theological systems of the two confessions.

Christological Axioms. 5

topics which owed their origin to the ecclesiastical move-
ment towards the re-union of the two branches of the
German Protestant Church, long unhappily separated by
divergent views on the questions to whose discussion that
copious literature is devoted. Besides the work just
named, Schneckenburger wrote a special treatise on the
two states of Christ,^ designed as a contribution to eccle-
siastical Christology, in which he endeavoured to show
that the doctrines of the states taught respectively by the
two contrasted confessions involved a corresponding modi-
fication of view not only on Christ's person, but also on the
nature of His work on earth and in heaven, on the justifica-
tion of believers, and even on the whole religious and
ecclesiastical life of the two communions. It is true,
indeed, that the proof of this position does not settle the
question which was the determining factor, the doctrine of
the states, or the other doctrines to which it stands re-
lated. It does, however, serve to show this at least, that
the related doctrines of the states and of the person being,
in mathematical language, functions of each other, it is in
our option to begin with either, and use it as a help in the
determination of the other. Nor has the distinguished
writer to whom I have alluded left us in uncertainty as to
which of the two courses he deemed preferable. Criticis-
ing the rectification of the Lutheran Christology proposed
by Thomasius, the founder of the modern Kenotic school,
8ie says: " The position that the doctrine of the person
should not be explained by that of the states, but inversely,
because the former is the foundation of the latter, is one
which I must contradict, nay, which the author himself
(Thomasius) virtually contradicts, inasmuch as he seeks to
shape the doctrine of the person, or to improve it, by the
idea of the states, especially by the doctrine of redemption,
in so far as it falls within the state of humiliation,"" I have
no doubt this view is a just one. Indeed, it appears to me
that the history of Lutheran Christology affords abundant
evidence of the desirableness of commencing Christological

' Zur Kirchlichen Christologie: Die orthodoxe Lehre vom doppelten Stande
Christi nach Liitherischer und Reformirter Fassuttg. This work was published
before the other, in 1848. * Vom doppelten Stande Christi, p. 202.

6 The Hiuniliatio7i of Christ.

inquiries with a careful endeavour to form a correct view of
the doctrine of the states, and especially of the Scripture
teaching concerning our Lord's humiliation. Had the
Lutheran theologians followed this course, it is probable
that their peculiar Christology would never have come into
existence, and would therefore have stood in no need of
rectification.

Theologically legitimate, the method I propose is recom-
mended by practical considerations. Starting from the
central idea, that the whole earthly history of our Saviour
is the result and evolution of a sublime act of self-humilia-
tion, the doctrine of His person becomes invested with a
high ethical interest. An advantage this not to be over-
looked in connection with any theological truth involving
mysteries perplexing to reason. A mysterious doctrine,
divested of moral interest, and allowed to assume the
aspect of a mere metaphysical speculation, is a doctrine
destined ere long to be discarded. Such, for example,
must be the inevitable fate of the doctrine of an immanent
Trinity when it becomes dissociated in men's minds from
practical religious interests, and degenerates into an ab-
stract tenet. The Trinity, to be secure, must be connected
in thought with the Incarnation, even as at the first, when
it obtained for itself gradually a place in the creed of the
Church in connection with efforts to understand the nature
and person of Christ;^ even as the Incarnation itself, in
turn, is secure only when it is regarded ethically as a
revelation of divine grace. The effect of divorcing doctrinal
from moral interests was fully seen in the last century,
when the Trinity and kindred dogmas were quietly dropped
out of the living belief of the Church, though retained in
the written creed. Men then said to themselves, " What
is practical, what is of moral utility, is alone of value; the
doctrines of the Trinity and of the Deity of Christ are mere
theological mysteries, therefore they may be ignored ! "
Thus, as Dorner, speaking of the period in question, re-
marks, " Many a point which forms a constitutive element
of the Christian consciousness was treated as non-essential,

' Vid. Donier, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i.
p. 49 (Clark's translation).

Christological Axioms. j

on the ground of its being unpractical; and in particular,
essential portions of Christology, and of that which is con-
nected with it, were set aside." ^ The same spirit of narrow
religious utilitarianism, of overweening value for the practi-
cal and the "verifiable," is abroad at the present time,
working steadily towards the restoration of the state of
things which prevailed in last century; and those who are
concerned to counterwork the evil tendency, must apply
their energies to the task of showing that discredited doc-
trines are not the dry, metaphysical dogmas they are taken
for, but rather a refuge from dry metaphysics — truths
which, however mysterious, are yet of vital ethical and re-
ligious moment; even the doctrine of the Trinity itself
being the product of an ethical view of the divine nature,
the embodiment of " the only complete ethical idea of
God,"^ not to be abandoned except at the risk of falling
into either Pantheism or Atheism.

In this point of view it appears advisable to give great,
prominence to the self-humiliation of Christ in connection
with Christological inquiries. This method of procedure
procures for us the advantage of starting with an idea which
is dear to the Christian heart, with which faith will not
willingly part, and for the sake of which it will readily ac-
cept truths surpassing human comprehension. If the great
thought, under whose guidance we advance, do not con-
duct us to new discoveries, it will at all events redeem the
subjects of our study from the blighting influence of
scholasticism.

In the New Testament, and more especially in the Epis-
tle of Paul to the Philippians, and in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, are to be found certain comprehensive statements
concerning the meaning and purpose of our Lord's appear-
ance on earth. These statements our method requires us

' Vid. Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii.
p. 28 (Clark's translation).

' This view is strongly maintained by Liebner in his Christologie (p. 66), a
work of a very speculative character, and Kenotic in its Christology, but full ol
valuable and suggestive thoughts, and abounding in interesting expositions and
criticisms of contemporary opinions. Liebner's work is especially valuable for
the vigour with which it asserts the ethical conception of God over against the
Pantheistic on the one hand, and the Deistic on the other.

8 The Humiliation of Christ.

in the first place to consider with the view of ascertaining
what they imply, that we may use the inferences they seem
to warrant as axioms in all our subsequent discussions.
As the truths we are in quest of are to serve the purpose
of axioms, they must, of course, be of an elementary char-
acter; but they are not on that account to be despised.
The axiom, that things which are equal to the same thing
are equal to one another, is a very elementary truth; but
it is nevertheless one which you cannot neglect without
serious consequences to your system of geometry. In
theology, as in mathematics, much depends on the axioms;
not a few theological errors have arisen from oversight of
some simple commonplace truth.

Our object being merely to fix the axioms, it will not be
necessary that we should enter into any elaborate, detailed,
and exhaustive description of the doctrine of the states, or
to attempt more than a general survey. And, further, as
the main business of Christology is to form a true concep-
tion of the historical person Jesus Christ, we may confine
our attention chiefly to the earlier of the two states which
belongs to history and falls within our observation, con-
cerning which alone we possess much information, and
around which the human interest mainly revolves. Of
the state of exaltation I shall speak only occasionally,
*vhen a fitting opportunity occurs.

In addressing ourselves, then, to the task of discovering
Christological axioms, we are obliged to acknowledge that
the fixation of these is unhappily no easy matter. Few of
the axioms are axiomatic in the sense of being truths
universally admitted. The diversity of opinion prevailing
among interpreters in regard to the meaning of the prin-
cipal passage bearing on the subject of Christ's humiliation
— that, namely, in the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to
the Philippians — is enough to fill the student with despair,
and to afflict him with intellectual paralysis. In regard
to the kenosis spoken of there, for example, the widest
divergence of view prevails. Some make the kenosis scarce-
ly more than a skenosis, — the dainty assumption by the
unchangeable One of a humanity which is but a doketic
husk, a semi-transparent tent, wherein Deity sojourns, and

Christolozical Axioms.

"&>

through which His glory, but slightly dimmed, shines with
dazzling brightness. The Son of God, remaining in all
respects what He was before His incarnation, became
what He was not, and so emptied Himself Others ascribe
to the kenosis some sense relatively to the divine nature;
holding that the incarnation involved even for that nature
a change to some extent; that the Son of God did not re-
main in all respects as He was; that at least He underwent
an occultation of His glory. A third class of expositors
make the kenosis consist not merely in a veiling of the
divine glory, but in a depotentiation of the divine nature, so
that in the incarnate Logos remained only the bare essence
of Deity stripped of its metaphysical attributes of omni-
potence, omniscience, and omnipresence. According to a
fourth school, the kenosis refers not to the divine nature,
but to the human nature of Christ. He, being in the form
of God, shown to be a divine man by His miracles and by
His moral purity, emptied Himself of the divine attributes
with which He, as a man, was endowed, so far as use at
least was concerned, and in this self-denial set Himself
forth as a pattern to all Christians, as well as fitted
Himself for being the Redeemer from sin.

It is specially discouraging to the inquirer after first prin-
ciples to find, as he soon does, that, as a rule, the interpre-
tation of the passage in question depends on the inter-
preter's theological position. So much is this the case, that
one can almost tell beforehand what views a particular ex-
positor will take, provided his theological school be once
ascertained. On the question, for example — a most impor-
tant one — respecting the proper subject of the proposition
beginning with the words, "Who, being in the form of
God,"^ expositors take sides according to their theological
bias. The old orthodox Lutherans almost as a matter of
course reply, " The subject concerning whom the affirma-
tion is made is the Logos incarnate (e)isai^kos), the man
Christ Jesus; the meaning of the apostle being, that the
man Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, and possessing
as man divine attributes, did nevertheless, while on earth,

» Phil. ii. 6.

10 The Humiliation of Christ.

make little or no use of these attributes; but in effect
emptied Himself of them, and assumed servile form, and
was in fashion and habit as other men." The old Reformed
theologians, on the other hand, after the example of the
Church Fathers, with equal unanimity reply, "The subject
of whom Paul speaks is the Logos before incarnation
{asarkos\ the Son of God personally pre-existent before He
became man; and the sense is, that He, being in the form
of God, subsisting as a divine being before the incarnation,
emptied Himself, by being made in the likeness of man, and
taking upon Him the form of a servant." Among modern
theologians, the advocates of the kenosis, in the sense of a
metaphysical self-exinanition of the Logos, whether be-
longing to the Lutheran or to the Reformed confession,
side with the Fathers and with the old Reformed dogma-
tists. Those, on the other hand, who reject the doctrine
of an immanent Trinity, and along with it the personal
pre-existence of the Logos, naturally adopt the view of the
Lutheran dogmatists, and understand the passage as re-
lierring exclusively to the historical person, the man Christ
^esus. They can do nothing else so long as they claim to
have Biblical support for their theological and Christolog-
licai systems. They come to this text with a firm convic-
tion-that it cannot possibly contain any reference to a free,
conscious act of the pre-existent Logos. Li arguing with
exposttors of this school there is therefore a previous ques-
tion to be settled: Is the Church doctrine of the Trinity
scriptura"!, or is it not .-'

This is, indeed, the previous question for all Christologi-
cal theories. Every one who would form for himself a con-
ception of the person of Christ must first determine his
idea of God, and then bring that idea to his Christological
task as one of its determining factors. Accordingly, in com-
plete treatises on the person and work of Christ, like that
of Thomasius,-' we find the Christian idea of God and the
doctrine of the Trinity discussed under the head of Christ-
ological presuppositions. In the present course of lectures,
such a discussion .would of course be altogether out of

1 Thomasius, Christi Person tmd Werk. Darstellung der Evangclisch-Luther'
ischen Dogiiisfik v.om. Aiitte.lpujg.kte der Christologie aiis.

Christolos;ical Axioms. \ i

"i>

place; but I may here take occasion to express my con-
viction, that what I have called the previous question of
Christology, is destined to become the question of the day
in this country, as it has been for some time past in Ger-
many. What is God ? Is personality, involving self-con-
sciousness and self-determination, predicable of the Divine
Being; or is He, or rather it, merely the unknown and
unknowable substratum of all phenomena,' the impersonal
immanent spirit of nature, the unconscious moral order of
the world in which the idea of the good somehow and to
some extent realizes itself,^ the absolute Idea become An-
other in physical nature, and returning to itself and attain-
ing to personality in man; becoming incarnate not in an
individual man, but in the human race at large ?' — such,
according to all present indications, are the mom.entous
questions on which the thoughts of men are about to be
concentrated. And if one may venture to predict the re-
sult of the great debate, it will probably be to show that
between Pantheism, under one or other of its forms, mate-
rialistic or idealistic, and the Christian doctrine of God, in
which the ethical predominates, there is no tenable posi-
tion; in the words of a German theologian whom I have
already had occasion to quote: *' That the whole of specu-
lative theology stands in suspense between the pure abstract
One, general Being, iv nai Tcdv, in which God and world
alike go down, and the ethical hypostatical Trinity, or be-
tween the boldest, emptiest, hardest Pantheism, and the
completed ethical personalism of Christianity; all panthe
istic and theistic modes, from Spinoza to the most devel-
oped forms of modern Theism, being only transition and
oscillation which cannot abide." *

The influence of theological bias on the exegesis of the
/oc?/s classicus in the Epistle to the Philippians being
apparent in the case of so many theologians of highest

' Vid. Herbert Spencer, Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, part i.

2 Vid. Strauss, Die christliche Glaiibcnslehre, i. 392, and Mr. Matthew Arnold,
Literature and Dogma. Arnold defines God as a Power that makes for righteous-
ness; the power being impersonal, and, so to speak, neuter. Arnold's Power
making for righteousness is the same with Fichte's moral order of tlie world, re-
garded simply as an ultimate fact, not as the result of a personal Providence

' So Hegel. 4 Liebner, Christologie, pp. 266-7.

12 The Himtiliation of Christ.

reputation, it would be intolerable conceit in any man to
claim exemption therefrom. I, for my part, have no desire
to put forth such a claim. On the contrary, I avow my
wish to arrive at a particular conclusion with respect to the
interpretation of the passage; one, viz., which should assign
a reality to the idea of a Being in the form of God by a free
act of gracious condescension becoming man. I am de-
sirous to have ground for believing that the apostle speaks
here not only of the exemplary humility of the man Jesus,
but of the more wonderful, sublime self-humiliation of the
pre-existent personal Son of God. For then I should have
Scripture warrant for believing that moral heroism has a
place within the sphere of the divine nature, and that love
is a reality for God as well as for man. I do not wish, if I
can help it, to worship an unknown or unknowable God
called the Absolute, concerning whom or which all Bible
representations are mere make-believe, mere anthropomor-
phism; statements expressive not of absolute truth, but
simply of what it is well that we should think and feel con-
cerning God. I am not disposed to subject my idea of God
to the category of the Absolute, which, like Pharaoh's lean
kine, devours all other attributes, even for the sake of
the most tempting apologetic advantages which that cate-
gory may seem to offer. A poor refuge truly from unbelief
is the category of the Absolute ! " We know not God in
Himself," says the Christian apologist,^ " therefore we can
never know that what the Bible says of Him is false, and may
rationally receive it as true." " We know not God," rejoins
the agnostic man of science;^ " and the more logical infer-
ence is, that all affirmations concerning Him in the Bible
or elsewhere are incompetent; the Bible God is an eidoloji
whose worship is only excusable because it is wholesome
in tendency." "God, strictly speaking, has no attributes,
but is mere and simplest essence, which admits of no real
difference, nor any composition either of things or of modes,"
declares the old orthodox dogmatist.^ " So be it," replies
a formidable modern opponent of orthodoxy, Dr. Baur of

' Vid. Mansel, Limits of Religious Thought.

» Vid. Herbert Spencer, First Principles.

' Quenstedt, quoted by Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, vol. iii. p. 340.

Christological Axioms. 13

Tiibingen/ " I agree with you, but that proposition amounts
to substantial Pantheism; " and the theological system of
Schleiermacher shows that Baur is right. If, therefore, we
wish to believe with our hearts in the Bible, we must hold
fast by the ethical conception of God; and whatever dis
putes arise between us and others holding in common with
us the same general idea of the Divine Being, we must
settle on ethical grounds* not fleeing for refuge from per-
plexities to an idea of God which removes the very founda-
tions of faith, and becoming in effect Pantheists or Atheists
in order that we may not be Socinians. It is in vain to
think of saving the catholic faith on the principles of theo-
logical nescience; foolish to seek escape from moral diffi-
culties by means of sceptical metaphysics. As Maurice, in
his reply to Mansel, well says: "Such an apology for the
faith costs too much." ^ It saves such doctrines as those
of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Atonement at
the cost of all the moral interest which properly belongs to
them, and converts them into mere mysteries, which must
be received because we are not able to refute them; but
which, in spite of all the apologist's skill, will not be re-
ceived, but will meet the fate of all mere mysteries devoid
of moral interest, — that of being neglected, or even ridi-
culed, as they have been lately by the author ol Literature
and Dogma; ridiculed not in mere wantonness, though that
is not wanting, but in the interest of a practical ethical use
of the Bible as a book not intended to propound idle theo-
logical puzzles, but to lead men into the way of right conduct.
Holding such views, desirous to believe in a God abso-
lutely full of moral contents, knowable on the ethical side
of His nature truly though not perfectly, like man in that
which most exalts human nature, — loving with a love like
that of good men, — only incomparably grander, rising in
point of magnanimity high above human love, as heaven is
high above the earth,' passing knowledge in dimensions, but
perfectly comprehensible in nature,* I am predisposed to

' Baur, Lehre vcn der Dreieinigkeit, vol. iii. pp. 339-352-

* Maurice, What is Revelation? p. 131. ^ Isa. Iv. 8, 9.

* Eph. iii. 18, 19. There is an unknowableness of God taught here, but it Is a
very different one from that asserted by the philosophy of the Absolute. It is the

14 The Humiliation of Christ.

agree with those who find in the famous text from the
Epistle to the Philippians a clear reference to an act of con-
descension on the part of the pre-existent Son of God, in
virtue of which He became man. Schleiermacher naively
objects to the idea of humiliation as applied to the earthly-
state of Christ, because it implies a previous higher state
from which the self-humbled One descended, — a view
which he regards as at once destructive of the unity ot
Christ's person, and incompatible with the nature of God,
the absolutely Highest and Eternal.^ What Schleier-
macher objects to in the idea of humiliation, appears to me
its chief recommendation; and I agree with Martensen in
thinking it a capital defect in Schleiermacher's Christology
that it excludes the idea of the pre-existence of the Son,
and along with it, the idea of a condescending revelation
of love on the part of the eternal Logos. ^ I refuse to accept
an idea of God which makes such condescension impossible
or meaningless; nor am I able to regard that as the abso-
lutely Highest which cannot stoop down from its altitude.
The glory of God consists not simply in being high, but
in that He, the highest and greatest, can humble Himself
in love to be the lowest and least. The moral, not the
metaphysical, is the highest, if not the distinctive, in the
Divine Being.

While making this frank — it may even appear ostenta-
tious— avowal of theological bias, and confessing that the
Scriptures would contain for me no revelation of God, did
they not teach a doctrine of divine grace capable of taking
practical historical shape in an Incarnation, I do not admit
that it is a far-fetched or strained interpretation which

unknowableness as to dimensions of a love believed to be most real, and in it?
nature comprehensible. It is the same kind of unknowableness which is spoken of
in Job. xi. 7. It is not a question whether God can be known at all, but a ques-
tion of finding out the Almighty unto perfection— of taking the measure of the
Divine Being. The Scripture doctrine of divine unknowableness is the very op-
posite extreme to that of the philosophers. "Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the
heavens, Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds: Thy righteousness is like the great
mountains,. Thy judgments are a great deep," say the Scriptures. " Mercy, truth,
righteousness, judgment, are words which convey no absolutely true meannig with
reference to the Divine Being," says the philosophy of the Absolute.

' Glaitbenslehre, ii. p. 159.

* Die Chrisiliche Dogmatik, p. 252.

Christological Axioms. i5

brings such a doctrine out of Paul's words in his Epistle to
the Philippians. That interpretation appears to me the
one which would naturally occur to the mind of any per-
son coming- to the passage, bent solely on ascertaining its
meaning, without reterence to his own theological opinions.
It may be regarded as a presumption in favour of this view
when writers like Schleiermacher and Strauss, neither of
them a believer in the doctrine of a personally pre-existent
Logos, nevertheless admit that it is at least by implication
taught in the passage. The former author, indeed, seeks
to deprive the statements contained therein of all theo-
logical value, by representing them as of an "ascetic" and
" rhetorical " character; the expressions not being intended
to be " didactically fixed," ^ — a convenient method of get-
ting rid of unacceptable theological dogmas, which may be
applied to any extent, and which, if applied to Paul's
Epistles, would render it difficult to extract any theological
inferences therefrom, inasmuch as nearly all the doctrinal
statements they contain arise out of a practical occasion,
and are intended to serve a hortatory purpose. Strauss,
on the other hand, making no pretence of adhering to
Scripture in his theological views, frankly acknowledges
that, according to the doctrine of Paul in this place, Christ
is One who, before His incarnation, lived in a divine glory,
to which, after His freely assumed state of humiliation was
over. He returned.^

It is now time that I should explain the sense in which
I understand the passage referred to, which I shall do very
briefly, relegating critical details to another place/ The
subject spoken about is the historical person Jesus Christ,
conceived of, however, as having previously existed before
He entered into history, and as in His pre-existent state,
supplying material fitted to serve the hortatory purpose the

' Glaiihcnslchre, ii. p. i6i. Schleiermacher's admission is not hearty; for while
the manner in which he explains away the apparent meaning of the passage impHes
such an admission as I have ascribed to him, he remarks that the way in which
Paul here sets forth Christ as an example, is quite compatible with the idea that
he has in view merely the appearance of lowliness in the life as well as in the
death.

2 Die Christllche Glaiibmslehre, i. 420.

3 See Appendix, Note A.

1 6 The Humiliation of Christ,

apostle has in view. Paul desires to set before the Church
in Philippi the mind of Christ in opposition to the mind of
self-seekers, and he includes the pre-existence in his rep-
resentation, because the mind he means to illustrate was
active therein, and could not be exhibited in all its sub-
limity if the view were restricted to the earthly career of
the Great Exemplar of self-renunciation. It has been
objected, that a reference to the pre-existence is beside
the scope of the apostle, his aim being to induce proud,
self-asserting Christians to imitate Christ in all respects
in which it was possible for them to become like Him,
while in respect of the Incarnation He is inimitable/ The
objection is a very superficial one. It is true that the act
by which the Son of God became man is inimitable; but
the mind which moved Him to perform that act is not
inimitable; and it is the mind or moral disposition of Christ,
revealed both in imitable and inimitable acts, which is the
subject of commendation. Therefore, though the great
drama of self-humiliation enacted by our Saviour on this
earth be the main theme of Christian contemplation, yet
is a glimpse into the mind of the pre-existent Son of God
a fitting prelude to that drama, tending to make it in its
whole course more impressive, and to heighten desire in
the spectators to have the same mind dwelling in them-
selves, leading them to perform on a humbler scale similar
acts of self-denial. Another argument against the refer-
ence to a pre-existent state has been drawn from the
historical name given to the subject of the proposition, Jesus
Christ. But this argument is sufficiently met by the re-
mark, that the same method of naming the subject is
employed by Paul in other passages where a pre-existence

• Gerhard's Loci Theologici, locus iv. cap. xiv. " De Statu exinanitionis et
exaltationis. " Gerhard says: " Scopus aposloli est, quod velit Philippenses hortari
ad humilitatem intuitu in Christi exemphim facto. Ergo praesentis, nou futuri
temporis, exemplum illis exhibet. Proponit eis imitandum Christi exemplum tan-
quam vitae regulam. Ergo considerat facta Christi quae in oculos incurrunt, in
quorum numero non est incarnatio. In eo apostolus jubet Philippenses imitari
CThristunL, in quo similes ipsi nondum erant, sed similes fieri poterant et debebant.
A.tqui erant illi jam ante veri homines, sed inflati ac superbi: Christum igitur eos
imitari, et humilitati studere, jubet, incarnatione vero nemo Filio Dei similis fieri
potest" (§ ccxciv.).

Christological Axioms. 17

of some sort, real or ideal, personal or impersonal, is un-
deniably implied.^

Of Him whose mind is commended as worthy of imita-
tion, the apostle predicates two acts through which that
mind was revealed: First, an act of self-emptying, in virtue
of which He became man; then a continuous act or habit
of self-humiliation on the part of the incarnate One, which
culminated in the endurance of death on the cross. ^Eawov
kHevoo6ev, — He emptied Himself, — that was the first great
act by which the mind of the Son of God was revealed.
Wherein did this usvaodi'; consist ? what did it imply ? The
apostle gives a twofold answer; one having reference to
the pre-existent state, the other to the sphere of Christ's
human history. With reference to the former, the kenosis
signified a firm determination not to hold fast and selfishly
cling to equality of state with God. Thus I understand
the words ovh dpitayndv rjyj)6aro to eivai i6a &eq5. The ren-
dering in our English version (" thought it not robbery to
be equal with God"), which follows patristic (Latin) exe-
getical tradition, is theologically true, but unsuited to the
connection of thought, and to the grammatical construc-
tion of the sentence. The apostle's purpose is not formally
to teach that Christ was truly God, so that it was not ar-
rogance on His part to claim equality of nature with God;
but rather to teach that He being God did not make a
point of retaining the advantages connected with the divine
state of being. Hence he merely mentions Christ's divinity
participially by way of preface in the first clause of the sen-
tence {oi £v MopcptJ &SOV vTtapxoov, who being, or subsisting,
in the form of God), and then hastens on to speak of the
mind that animated Him who was in the form of God, as a
mind so different from that of those who esteem and desire
to exalt themselves above others, that He was willing to
part with equality in condition with God. This part of the
sentence, beginning with ovudpnayi-iov, cannot, as Alford
justly remarks, "be a mere secondary one, conveying an

1 I Cor. X. 4-9; Col. i. 14, 15. The use of the historical name in reference to
the pre-existent Logos in these and other passages is admitted by Beyschlag (Die
Chrisiologie des neuen Testavients, p. 240), who does not admit a personal, but
only an ideal pre-existence of the Logos.

1 8 The Hiimiliation of Christ.

additional detail of Christ's majesty in His pre-existent
state, but must carry the whole weight of the negation of
selfishness on His part; "^ unless we can suppose the writer
guilty of an irrelevancy tending to weaken the force of his
appeal by introducing one idea when another is naturally
^expected. But further, the grammatical construction pre-
cludes such a rendering of this clause as is given in the
English version. In the text, the idea expressed by dpnay-
uuv iiyiiCazo, etc., IS opposed to the idea expressed by the
words aavrov tH£vw6Ev, the connecting particle being dxxd
(but), so that in the former clause is stated negatively what
in the latter is stated positively. He did not practise
dpzayjicuv with reference to equality with God; but, on the
contrary, emptied Himself. The patristic rendering, re-
tained in the English version, requires the connecting par-
ticle to be a word signifying "nevertheless;" not dXXd,
but a word equivalent to the Attic phrase ov i.ii)v dXld. '
Beyond all doubt, therefore, whatever t6 eivai I'dcx 0£gj may
mean, it points to something which both the connection of
thought and the grammatical structure of the sentence
require us to regard the Son of God as willing to give up.
Looking now at the connection between the prefatory
participial clause and the one we have just been consider-
ing, we must regard " to be equal with God " as exegetical
of "being in the form of God." Those interpreters who
take the whole passage as having exclusive reference to
the earthly history of Christ, distinguish the two; regard-
ing the/or7n of God a.s something possessed by Christ even
in the state of humiliation, and equality with God as a thing
to be attained in the state of exaltation, a privilege for
which the Lowly One was content patiently to wait, ab-
staining from prematurely clutching at it, by making an
unseasonable parade of His divine dignity. But the subor-
dinate position assigned to the phrase to sivai Ida Oeoj in the

1 Alford in /oca.

2 This is frankly acknowledged by Zancliius: "ilia vox dXXd," he says, " ad-
versativa cum sit particula, et in praecedenti versu non ita liquido apparet cuinam
verbo adversetur, reddit constructionem utcunqiie difficilem. Syriac. facilio'em
facit cum habeat ella, id est nihilominus." — De Jilii Dei Incarnatione, lib. i.
cap. ii. 7.

Christological Axioms. ig

clause to which it belongs, it being placed at the end, while
ovH dfntayi.i6v i)y7']6avo Stands in the forefront to catch the
reader's eye, as the principal matter, shows that it simply
repeats the idea already expressed by the words ky nopcpy
&SOU v7tdpx<J^y-

The two phrases being equivalent, it follows that no
meaning can be assigned to either which would involve an
inadmissible sense for the other. By this rule we are pre-
cluded from understanding by the form of God the divine
essence or nature; for such an interpretation would oblige
us to find in the second clause the idea that the Son of God
in a spirit of self-renunciation parted with His divinity.
We must decline here to follow in the footsteps of the Fa-
thers, who, with the exception of Hilary,^ invariably took
form as synonymous with nature; possibly misled by a too
absorbing desire to find in the passage a clear undeniable
assertion of our Lord's proper divinity, — a desire which could
have been gratified without having recourse to misinterpre-
tation; inasmuch as the zV;z//z>^ assertion of that truth which
the words of the apostle, rightly interpreted, really do con-
tain, is even more forcible than a formal didactic statement
would have been. Mopeprj does not mean the same thing as
oudia or q)u6ii. Even the old Reformed theologian Zan-
chius, while following the patristic tradition in the inter-
pretation of the word, acknowledges the distinguishableness
of the terms, and quotes with approbation a passage from
a contemporary, Danaeus, in which they are very clearly
distinguished, ou6ia being defined as denoting the naked
essence, qjudu as the ovdia clothed with its essential prop-
erties, and t-iofxprj as adding to the essential and natural
properties of the essence, other accidents which follow the
true nature of a thing, and by which, as features and colours,
o\t6ia and cpv6x% are shaped and depicted.^ Thus understood,
uopipi'i presupposes oudia and cpudu, and yet is separable

' Hilary varied in his interpretation, sometimes identifying, sometimes distin-
guishing, /itopcpjj and <pv6ti. See Appendix, Note A.

2 Zanchius, De filii Incarnatione, lib. i. cap. xi. : ^^Otdta proprie significat
nudam essentiam . . . ^udi? ipsi essentiae addit proprietates essentiales et natu-
rales: /.iopq)j] addit essentiae et proprietatibus essentialibus et naturalibus alia etiam
accidentia quae veram rei naturam sequuntur, et quibus, quasi lineamentis et col-
oribus ovdia et (pv6ii conformantur atque depinguntur."

20 The Humiliation of Christ.

from them; it cannot exist without them, but they can ex-
ist without it. The Son of God, subsisting in the form of
God, must have possessed divine ov6ia and divine cpv6ii\ but
it is conceivable that, retaining the ov6i(x. and the q)v6ii,
He might part with the /.lopq)!}. And in point of fact such
a parting for a season with the uopcpr} seems clearly taught
in this place. Tht, apostle conceives of the Incarnation as
an exchange of divine form for the human form of exist-
ence. In what the thing parted with precisely consists,
and what the dogmatic import of the exchange may be,
are points open to debate. As to the former, we must be
content, meantime, with the general statement that the
thing renounced was not divine essence, or anything be-
longing essentially to the divine nature. The Logos re-
mained what He was in these respects when He became
what He was not; equal to God in nature Q'doi 0s(^), while
ceasing for a season to be His equal in state (ioa SeoS). As
to the latter, the exchange of forms may, as Martensen
and others hold, be compatible with the theory of a double
life; not an absolute exchange, but one relative to the incar-
nate life of the Logos. All that can be confidently affirmed
is that the apostle does conceive the Incarnation under the
aspect of an exchange of a divine form for a human form
of being; so that, as expositors, we are not entitled to
interpret the words, "being in the form of God," as mean-
ing "continuing to subsist in divine form."

The kcnosis, being first represented negatively, with ref-
erence to the pre-existent state, as a free determination not
■ to hold fast equality with God, is next represented posi-
I tively, with reference to the historical existence, as consist-
i ing in the assumption of the form of a servant, and in being
made in the likeness of man. Mopcp?}!^ SovXov Xa/3o6y, tv 6/.iot-
couariavtipcaTtGav yevouEvoi ("taking the form of a servant,
being made in the likeness of men"). The ethicaf quality
of Christ's human life is described in the former of these
two clauses; the fact of His becoming man is referred to
in the latter. The first clause declares the end of the In-
carnation, the second sets forth the Incarnation itself as
the means to that end. The Son of God took human na-
ture that He might, as a man, live in the form of a servant.

Christological Axioms. 21

The servant-form is thus not to be identified with the human
nature, any more than the form of God is to be identified
with the divine nature. The human nature was simply the
condition under which it was possible to bear the form of
a servant, even as the divine nature is the presupposition
of existence in the form of God. The order in which the
two clauses are arranged is rhetorical rather than logical.
That is placed first which is of most importance to the
writer's purpose, as the eulogist of the mind which was in
Christ; the mere fact of the Incarnation is spoken of subor-
dinately, and in the second place, simply to explain in what
circumstances Christ took the form of a servant, viz. in
human nature. In this connection it is not unworthy of
remark that the participle in the first clause is active, while
that in the second clause is passive. Christ was made
man, but He took servile form. His end in becoming man
was that He might be able to wear that form of existence
which is at the greatest possible distance from, and presents
th6 greatest possible contrast to, the form of God. He
desired to live a human life, of which servitude should be
the characteristic feature, — servitude in every conceivable
sense, and in the extreme degree; so that the whole of His
history might be summed up in His own words to His dis-
ciples: " I am among you as one who serveth." Such was
Christ's mind in resolving to enter into this time world, as
conceived of here by Paul. He would come to earth not to
be ministered unto, but to minister. No view of our Lord's
person and work can be satisfactory which does not do full
justice to this great truth.

Having described the first great act in which the mind
of Christ revealed itself, — the kcnosis^ — the apostle next pro-
ceeds to describe the second, the humiliation {ranEivoodn), in
these terms: "And being found in fashion, or guise, as a
man. He humbled Himself and became obedient as far as
death, even the death of the cross." Here, again, what is
emphasized is not the humanity of Christ, but the servile,
suffering character of His life as a man. The humanity is
described in terms which, if meant to be emphatic, might
suggest a doketic view of the Incarnation — "being found
in guise as a man, a man to look at, and in outward ap-

2 2 The Humiliation of CJirist.

pearance." But the apostle is bent, not on asserting dog-
matically the reality of Christ's humanity, but on holding
up to admiration the humility of the man Christ Jesus.
Now actually become man, recognisable as a man by all
His fellow-men, He humbled Himself. And how, accord-
ing to the apostle, did Christ as man show His humility ?
By persevering in, and carrying out, the purpose for which
He became man. Having b.ecome man that He might be
a servant, He, being now a man, gave Himself up to ser-
vice; became obedient — carried obedience to its extreme
limit, submitting even to death, and to death in its most
degrading form; so, for divine glory renounced, receiving
in exchange the deepest ignominy to which even a slave
can be subjected. Why obedience was carried this length
is not explained; the reason is assumed to be known. The
point emphasized is, that Christ humbled Himself to this
extent, and so realized His aim in becoming man, and
persevered in the same mind to the very last.

In view of the foregoing exposition, these inferences from

the passage we have been considering seem warrantable: —

V I. The account given of the mind of the Subject spoken

about, presupposes the existence previous to the Incarnation

\ of a divine Personality capable of a free resolve to perform

\ the sublime act of self-exinanition which issued in the

/ Incarnation.

\ 2. This act of self-exinanition involved a change of state
for the Divine Actor; an exchange, absolute or relative,
of the form of God for the form of a servant.

1, 3. Notwithstanding this change, the personality contin-
ued the same. Kenosis did not mean self-extinction^ or
metamorphosis of a Divine Being into a mere man. He
who emptied Himself was the same with Him who humbled
Himself; and the kenosis and the tapeinosis were two acts
of the same mind dwelling in the same Subject.

4. The humiliation (tapeinosis) being a perseverance in
the mind which led to the kenosis, implies not only identity
of the subject, but continuity of self-consciousness in that
subject. The man Christ Jesus knew that, being in the
form of God, He had become man, was acquainted with
the mind that animated Him before His Incarnation, and

Christolozical Axioms.

made it His business in the incarnate state to carry out
that mind.

5. Christ's life on earth was emphatically a life of service.

6. Throughout the whole drama of self-exinanition, as
indeed the very word implies, Christ was a free agent. He
did not merely experience kenosis and tapeinosis, — He
emptied Himself, He humbled Himself. The kenosis must
be ethically conceived, not as. bringing the subject once for
all into a state of physical inability to assert equality with
God, but as leaving room for a voluntary perseverance in
the mind not to assert that equality, on the part of One
who could do otherwise. This voluntariness, however, is
not to be conceived of as excluding a reign of natural law
in Christ's humanity; such being necessary to the j-cality
of that humanity, and involved, indeed, in the very idea of
a human nature. To imagine that Christ hungered, and
thirsted, and slept, and felt weariness by a special act of
will, — making possible by a miracle what would otherwise
have been impossible, — is unmitigated doketism. This
form of doketism, as I shall have occasion hereafter to
point out, is not unknown in the history of doctrine.

These inferences are all in harmony with the main scope
of the passage, which is to eulogize the humility of Christ.
The first gives to that humility unbounded scope to dis-
play itself, by introducing the self-renouncing mind even
within the sphere of divinity; the second makes self-exin-
anition a reality even for God; the third secures that what-
ever in the earthly experience of the man Christ Jesus
involved humiliation, shall be predicable of a divine person;
the fourth gives infinite moral value to every act of self-
humiliation performed by Christ on earth, by making the
actor conscious of the contrast between His past and
present states, performing every lowly service as One who
knew "that He was from God; "^ the fifth exhibits the
contrast between the pre-incarnate and the post-incarnate
states in the strongest possible light; and the sixth, by
representing Christ as, in the whole course of His humilia-
tion, a free agent, not merely the passive subject of an
involuntary experience, makes Him in all a proper ex-

1 John xiii, 3.

24 The Humiliation of CJwist.

ample of humility, as well as a fit subject of reward by
exaltation.

While full of instruction regarding the mind of the Di-
vine Being known in this world's history by the name of
Jesus Christ, the passage whose meaning we have now
ascertained is vague and general in its statements concern-
ing the Juimanity assumed by that Being in a spirit of self-
exinanition. It does not tell us how the humanity was
assumed, nor does it teach any definite doctrine on the
more general question: how far the assuming agent was
like other men. That there was a genesis of some sort,
and a likeness to some extent, is all that is expressly
indicated. The phrases in which the likeness is asserted*
have even a superficial look of doketism about them, which,
while not without its value as an incidental proof that the
subject spoken of is something more than man, at the same
time seems to imply that He is also something less. It
would be altogether unwarrantable, however, to found a
serious charge of doketism on the manner in which the
apostle expresses himself.^ For, while it may not be im-
possible to put a doketic construction on the letter of the
passage, such a construction is utterly excluded by its
spirit. The form of a servant ascribed to the incarnate
One, implies likeness to men in their present condition in
all possible respects; for how could one be in earnest with
the servant's work whose humanity was in any sense do-
ketic .'' Then, from the mind in which the Incarnation
took its origin, the complete likeness of Christ's humanity
to ours may be inferred with great confidence. He who
was not minded to retain His equality with God, was not
likely to assume a humanity that was a make-believe or a
sham. It would be His desire to be in all things " like
unto His brethren." '

' hv oixotoDuari dvQpaoTtcov yevofXEvoi, ^xi^MOcvt evpEOsii ooi av-
Opoanoi.

* As Baur has done in his Apostcl Paidus, Zweite Theil, p. 50 ff. (Zvveite
Auflage). The Gnostic style of thought supposed to characterize the passage, ii.
5-9, involved in the doctrine of the kenosis, and also in the doketic view of Christ's
humanity, is Baur's chief argument against the genuineness of the Epistle to the
Philippians.

3 Van Mastricht finds even in the phrase nai dx^inocri supeUelZ oJj avQpoo-
troSa testimony to the reality of Christ's humanity. He says: " Notat habitum,

Christological Axioms. 2 5

On these grounds the Jiovioiisia^ of Christ's humanity
with ours may be regarded as a legitimate inference from
the passage we have been considering. But that import-
ant doctrine does not rest on mere inference; it is expressly
taught in other places of Scripture, especially in the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews, where it is proclaimed with great
clearness and emphasis. The writer of that Epistle, like
the writer of the Epistle to the Philippians, treats of the
subject of Christ's humiliation, but from a different point
of view. Paul exhibits that humiliation as something vol-
untarily endured by Christ in a spirit of condescension and
self-renunciation, which he exhorts his readers to admire and
imitate. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the
other hand, regards the same humiliation as an experience
to which Christ was subjected, and which, as apparently
incongruous to His intrinsic dignity, demands explanation.
The point of view is adapted by the writer to the spiritual
condition of his readers. The Hebrew Christians to whom
he writes can see in the earthly experience of Jesus nothing
glorious or admirable, but only a dark, perplexing puzzle,
a stumbling-block to faith, which makes it hard to believe
that Jesus can be the Christ. Hence, for one who would
establish them in the faith and keep them from apostasy,
it becomes an imperative task to endeavour to set the
earthly history of the object of faith in such a light that it
-hould not only cease to be a stumbling-block, but even
b converted into a source of strength and comfort. To
this task the writer accordingly addresses himself with great
boldness, skill, and eloquence. Disdaining the expedient
for making the task easy of lowering the essential dignity
of Christ, he commences his Epistle by setting forth that
dignity in terms which, for fulness, clearness, and intensity,

gestum, speciem omneque extermim, quod incurrit in sensus a quo quid agnoscitur,
quo veritatem humanae suae naturae passim Christus demonslravit (Luc. xxiv. 39;
John XX. 27). Non est idem {6x^lHC<.) cum /.lopcpy 6j.ioio6).tari, non inanis figuia
et species corporis, quasi Christus non esset verus homo, sed talis habitus qui de
monstrat rei veritatem sicut vvpavvov dxyuoc e'xsiv apud Sophoclem, est se
tyrannum praestare, demonstrare. Hinc EvpsQeii dicitur, inventus, corapertus,
certissimis argumentis est, oa? avOpooitoi, sicut homo, scil. verus, vulgaris, ut
rJf hie sit afhrmanlis, seu veritatis nota, non similitudinis." — Theor. pract. Theo-
logia, lib. V. cap, Lx. pars exeget. ' Vid. ^. 3, note I.

26 The HiimiLiation of Christ.

are not surpassed by any to be found in Scripture. Then
having declared Christ to be the Son of God, the bright-
ness of God's glory and the express image of His person,
the Lord of angels, the Maker of worlds, the everlasting
King, he approaches the subject of His humilation, and
sets himself to show how it can be reconciled with His
inherent majesty. The proof is given iu the second chap-
ter of the Epistle from the fifth verse to the end, and pre-
sents a train of reasoning characterized by profundity of
thought, and by a rhetorical skill which knows how to
make every thought bear upon the practical purpose in
view, — that, viz., of strengthening weak faith and comfort-
ing desponding hearts. This argument it is not necessary
for our present object to expound elaborately; it will
suffice to indicate the leading idea. The grand thought,
then, in this remarkable passage is this, that Christ to be
a Saviour must be a Brother, and that, as things actually
stand, that means that He must be humbled, must pass
through a curriaihim of temptation and suffering as a man,
in order that He may be in all respects like unto His brethren.
This great principle of brotherhood is formally enunciated
in the eleventh verse in these terms: " Both He thai sancti-
fieth and they who are (being) sanctified are all of one;"
a proposition in the precise interpretation of which expos-
itors are much divided, but whose general import plainly
is, that the Sanctifier and those whom He is to sanctify,
however different in character, stand in such a relation to
one another, that the nearer they are in all other respects,
the greater the power of the Sanctifier to perform His
sanctifying work. Sanctifier and those to be sanctified
must be all of one race, all one party, having one interest,
one lot, a brotherhood to all intents and purposes; the
Holy One descending first into the state of the unholy, that
He may raise them in turn to His own proper level in
privilege and in character.^ Having enunciated this general

' In the interpretation of this important text I agree generally with Ilofmann,
whose views are to the following effect: The statement is to be understood as a
general proposition, as is shown by the present tenses (a^'zaCftJK, 6cy LaZ,6 jiEv ot\
which express not a habitual activity on the part of the Saviour, but a thing dona
once for all in Christ's history. Only as a general proposition could the statemen'
serve the purpose for which it was intended. Were it merely a historical fact, it

Cliristological Axioms. 27

principle, as one which he hopes may commend itself
as self-evident to the minds of his readers, the writer next
proceeds to show that it is recognised, has its root, in Old
Testament Scripture, and thereafter to supply some ex-
amples of its practical application. With the former view
he makes three quotations from the Psalms and the pro-
phets, the first of which indicates that Messiah stands
before God, not without, but within a community, and in
it as a community of persons whom He regards as breth-
ren, and to whom He has been drawn closer in fellow-
feeling by suffering; the second, that in the performance
of His work, Messiah stands in the same relation to God,
that of faith and dependence, as those whose good He has at
heart; and the third, that Messiah has associated with Him
in His work fellow-workers, to whom He is knit by the close
bond of human kinsmanship, even as God gave to Isaiah
his own children to be joint-prophets with him, "for signs
and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts."' These
three quotations the writer follows up with three examples
of the application of the principles which the quotations
are intended to establish. The principle is applied, first,
to the Incarnation; second, to the dcatJi of Christ; and
tliirdly, to His wliole experience of suffering and temptation
between the beginning and the end of His ministry. The

would need to be shown why the fact was so; whereas the object is to show how
the vocation of Christ as a Saviour, as a matter of course, required Him to assume
a suffering nature hke ours. The idea of dyiaC^fiv involves that the Actor and
those for whom He acts are all of one origin. IldvTEi is not superfluous, nor
is it = ditcpoTEpoi; but it signifies that the difference between Sanctifier and
sanctified does not affect descent, in reference to which they are rather Ttdvrei
Ic, evoi. What follows I give in Hofmann's own words: " Freilich muss man
nicht gleiche Herkunft aus Gott verstehen, von der es heissen mlisste dass sie von
ihnen nicht minder, als von ihm gelte; nicht Ttdvrei sondern d/Licp6tepot miisste
es heissen; dann aber auch nicht ec, svoS, da der Nachdruck darauf lage, dass der
Eine Gott es ist, von dem er und von dem sie herkommen, sondern eh rov evoi "
(that is, descent from God is not meant, otherwise it would have been said both,
not all are of one, both they as well as He, and it would farther have been said
not of one, but of the One). " Mit itavtEi 4| kvoi ist nicht betont, von wannen
sie sind, sondern dass sich die Allgemeinheit des gleichen Herkunft iiber den Ge-
gensatz des dytdZoav und der dytcx.^6)XEV0i erstreckt." (The object is not to
emphasize from whom or whence the parties take their origin, but to point out
that the community of origin covers the contrast between 6 dyid^oov and oi
(xyiaZ,6i.tEvot.)—Schrifibeweis, ii. 52-3.

' So substantially Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 54.

28 The Humiliation of Christ.

principle upon which the work of salvation proceeds being-,
that Sanctifier and sanctified are all of one, it follows first,
that inasmuch as the subjects of Christ's work are partakers
of flesh and blood. He also must in like manner become
partaker of the same (the likeness of the manner extending
even to the being- born, so that He might be one of the
childreii)\ second, that inasmuch as the subjects of Christ's
work are liable to death and to the fear of it. He also must
die that He may deliver His brethren from their bondage;
third, that inasmuch as the subjects of Christ's work are
exposed through life to manifold trials and temptations,
therefore He must pas-s through a very complete curriculum
of temptation, that He might be perfected in sympathy, and
gain the confidence of His brethren as one who could not
fail to be a merciful and trustworthy High Priest in things
pertaining to God.

The doctrine of the homousia, taking the term as signi-
fying likeness both in nature and in experience, thus shines
forth in full lustre in this magnificent paragraph of the
Epistle. It is enunciated as an axiomatic truth; it is estab-
lished by Scripture proof; it is illustrated by outstanding
facts in Christ's history. His birth, His death, His expe-
rience of temptation; it is re-asserted in the strongest terms
it is possible to employ: " In all things it behoved Him to
be made like unto His brethren." Nor does this exhaust
the testimony to the doctrine contained in the Epistle. In-
direct allusions to, and confirmations and enlargements of,
the same truth are scattered over its pages like gems; the
first hint occurring at the ninth verse of the second chapter,
where the Lord of angels, and rightful object of angelic
worship, is described as one made lower than the angels.'
Why.? Because He is the appointed Restorer of Paradise
and of all that man possessed there, and, in particular, of
lordship over all; and man being now no longer lord, but
rather a degraded slave, the second Adam must take His
place beside him, assuming the form and position of a ser-
vant, that He may lift man out of his degradation, and
restore to him his forfeited inheritance. An eloquent reit-
eration of the doctrine occurs at the close of that part of
» Heb. ii. 9: Tov ds ftpaxv vi nap' dy^eXovi iiXatvcouEvov.

Christological Axioms. 29

the Epistle which treats of the eternal Sabbatism, an-
other element of the paradisaical bliss lost by the fall,
whereof Jesus is the appointed Restorer. In this place the
great High Priest of humanit}^, and the Joshua of the Lord's
host, Himself now entered into the heavenly rest, is repre-
sented as one who can be touched with a feeling of our
infirmities, seeing He was tempted in all respects as we are,
was once a weary wanderer like ourselves, — the statement
being made only the more emphatic by the qualif}-ing
clause " without sin." " Tempted in all respects as we
are," speaking deliberately, the sole difference being that
He never yielded to temptation while in the wilderness, as
we too often do. The chapter follov/ing contains a touch-
ing allusion to a special point in the similitude of our Lord's
experience to ours, which brings Him very close to human
sympathies. It is in the place where Jesus is represented
as offering up, in the days of His flesh, prayers and suppli-
cations, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was
able to save Him from death.' Even thus far did the like-
ness extend. The Sanctifier shared with His brethren the
fear of death, through which thej^are all their lifetime sub-
ject to bondage. Once more, the comprehensive view
given in this Papistic, of the work of Christ as the Author
of salvation, suggests by implication an equally compre-
hensive view of the likeness between Him and His brethren.
The writer, in describing the work of redemption, keeps
constantly before his mind the history of man in Paradise.
He makes salvation consist in lordship of the world that is
to be, in deliverance from the fear of death, in entrance
into a rest often promised but yet remaining, an ideal
unexhausted by all past partial realizations — the perfect
Sabbatism of the people of God. These representations
plainly point back to the dominion over the creatures con-
ferred on man at his creation, and lost by sin; to the death
which was the wages of sin, and which Satan brought on
man by successfully tempting him to disobedience; and
to God's rest after the work of creation was finished, in
which unfallen man had part, and in which man restored is
destined again to share. Salvation thus consists in the

> Heb. V. 7.

30 The Humiliation of Christ.

cancelling of all the effects of the fall, and in the restoration
of all that man lost by his sin. But if this be the nature
of salvation, what, on the principle that Sanctifier and
sanctified are all of one, must the likeness of the Saviour
to the sinful sons of Adam amount to? Evidently to
subjection to the curse in its zvhole extent, as far as that is
possible for one who is Himself ivithout sin.

The view thus presented of our Lord's state of humilia-
tion is admirably fitted to serve the purpose which the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews had in mind (that of
fortifying his readers against temptations to apostasy,
whether arising out of the internal difficulties of the Chris-
tian faith, or out of eternal affliction suffered on account of
the faith), giving as it does to our Lord's whole earthly
experience a winsome aspect of sympathy with humanity
in its present sorrowful condition. But we have not yet
exhausted what the author of this Epistle has to say by
way of reconciling the Hebrew Christians to what had
hitherto been an offence unto them. He is not content
•With, apologising {or Christ's humiliation; he boldly repre-
sents that experience as in another aspect a glorification of
its subject. He speaks of Jesus as crowned with glory and
honour; not because He has tasted death for men, but in
order that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for
men.^ It has been customary, indeed, to regard this pas-
sage as referring to the state of exaltation, in which Christ
receives the reward of His voluntary endurance of the
indignities connected with the state of humiliation; but I
agree with Hofmann^ in thinking that the reference is rather
to an honour and glory which is not subsequent to, but
contemporaneous with, the state of humiliation, — the bright
side, in fact, of one and the same experience. It is the
honour and glory of being appointed to the high office of
Apostle and High Priest of the Christian profession, the
Moses and the Aaron of the new dispensation. That office

- Heb. ii. 9.

' Schriftbeweis, ii. 46 ff., Zweite Auflage. Hofmann's exposition of the whole
chapter is extremely good, and seems to me to bring out the connection of thought
better on the whole than anything I have seen. His discussions on the Epistle to
the Hebrews, generally, are most instructive, though not free from characteristic
eccentricities.

Christologicdl Axioms. 31

doubtless involves humiliation, inasmuch as it imposes on
Him who holds it the necessity of tasting death; but even
in that respect His experience is not exclusively humiliat-
ing. For while it is a humiliation to die, it is glorious to
taste death /cT others; and by dying, to abolish death, and
bring life and immortality to light. To be appointed to an
office which has such a purpose in view, is ipso facto to be
crowned with glory and honour, and is a mark of signal
grace or favour on the part of God. And this is precisely
what the writer of the Epistle would have his readers un-
derstand. He would not have them see in the earthly
career of Jesus mere humiliation, — degradation difficult to
reconcile with His Messianic dignity; but rather the rough,
yet not degrading experience, incidental to a high, honour-
able, holy vocation. "We see," he says in effect, "two
things in Him by whom the prophecy in the eighth Psalm
is destined to be fulfilled in the restoration of man to lord-
ship in the world to come. On the one hand, we see Him
made lower than angels by becoming partaker of mortal
flesh and blood; a lowering made necessary by the fact that
it was men, not angels, whose case He was undertaking, —
men subject to the experience of death, whom, therefore,
on account of that experience, He could help only by
assuming a humanity capable of undergoing the same
experience.^ On the other hand, we see in this same Jesus,
humbled by being made a mortal man, one crowned with glory
and honour in being appointed to the office of Restorer of
Paradise and all its privileges, including lordship over all;
an office, indeed, whose end cannot be reached without the
endurance of death, but whose end is at the same time so
glorious that it confers dignity upon the means; so that it
may be said in sober truth that the divine Father mani-
fested signal grace towards His Son in giving Him the
opportunity of tasting death for others; that is to say,

• With Hofmann, I connect Sid to TtdBjma rov Oavdrov (ver. 9) with the
foregoing clause, and understand it as referring not specially to Christ's own suf-
ferings, but generally to the experience of death, to which man is subject. It
points out that in man's condition, on account of which Christ had to be made
lower than angels, so far as this implied becoming man. Those whose case Christ
undertook were men subject to death, therefore He too must become man that it
might be possible for Him to die.

32 The Humiliation of Christ.

of abolishing death as a curse, and making- it quite another
thing for them, by enduring it in His own person."

That such is the import of this notable text I have little
doubt, although I am constrained to admit that the mean-
ing now taken out of it has comparatively little support in
the history of interpretation. Most commentators explain
the passage as if, with the Hebrew Christians, they thought
the humiliation of Christ stood very much in need of apology.
Disregarding the grammatical construction, the scope of
the argument, and the hint given in the expression " we
see," which indicates that what is spoken of is something
falling within the sphere of visible reality, they almost with
one consent relegate the glory and honour to the state of
exaltation, as if the mention of such things in connection
with the state of humiliation were out of the question, and
altogether unwarranted by Scripture usage; although the
Apostle Peter speaks of Jesus as having received from God
the Father " honour and glory" when there came such a
voice to Him from the Excellent Glory: " This is my be-
loved Son, in whom I am well pleased;"^ and although
further, in this very Epistle, it is said of Jesus, as the Apostle
of our profession, that He was counted worthy of more
" glory " than Moses," and, as the High Priest of our pro-
fession, that even as no man took upon himself the honour
of the Jewish high-priesthood, " so also Christ glorified not
Himself to be made an high priest, but He that said unto
Him: ' Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.' "^
And as to taking the " grace of God " spoken of in the last
clause of the sentence as manifested directly, not to those
for whom Jesus died, but to Jesus Himself privileged to
die for them, it is an interpretation which, though yielding
a thought true in itself and relevant to the purpose in hand,
does not seem even to have occurred to the minds of most
expositors. This is all the more surprising, that the point-
lessness of the expression in question, as ordinarily inter-
preted, has not escaped notice. Ebrard, for example, feels
it so strongly that he falls back on the ancient reading
;fci3/3/5 G)£ou, adopted by Origen and the Nestorians, and used
by the former as an argument in favour of his theory of uni-

2 Pet. i. 17. 2 Heb. iii. 3. 3 Heb. v. 4, 5.

CJiristological Axioms. 33

versal restitution/ and by the latter as a proof text in
support of their doctrine of a double personality in the one
Christ. " The reading ;i;,^'p?rz/'^ Ebrard remarks, "is cer-
tainly clear as water, extremely easy to understand, but
also extremely empty of thought, and unsuitable;" herein
echoing the tone as well as the thought of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, who calls it ridiculous to substitute x<ipiri Geov
instead of x<^P^^ Geov, and represents those who do so as
adopting a reading which appears to them easy of compre-
hension, because they fail to see the sense of the true, more
difficult leading; that sense being, in his view, that the man
Jesus tasted death apart from God the Logos, to whom in
life He had been joined, it being unseemly that the Logos
should have any personal connection with death, though it
was not unseemly that He should make the man Jesus, as
the Captain of Salvation, perfect through suffering.' It is
not surprising that the Master of the East should have
preferred a reading which seemed to favour his peculiar
Christological theory; but it does seem strange that a
modern theologian, holding very different views on Chris-
tology, should feel himself forced to fall back on that read-

' Commenf. in joann. torn. i. c. 40: "/isya'^ edrlv dpxiepsvi, ovh vitsp
(XvBpcoTtoov ftovov, dXXd nai vtavroi Xoyinov vrjv drtac, Ov6uxv 7fpo6-
evsxOsldav ecxvrov dvEJ^EyucSv. Xoopii yap Geov vitep Ttavroi
iyevdaro Bavdrov, orcsp ev vi6i xsltat ryi TCpoi ''Efipaiovi avzi-
ypdcpoi'i, xdpiTi Geov. EI've Se X'^P^^ Geov vitep navrdi eyevdavo
Bavdrov, ov jiiovov vitep drOpoaitcov diteOavEv, dA.Xd xai vitsp rwv
Xoiitwv XoyiHc^r." Origen includes within the scope of the itavroi all exist-
ing beings except God, viewed as tainted with man's sin. "Kai yap," he says,
'^aroitov vTtip cxyQpooTt/vooj^ /liv avroy cpdduetv djuaprijjiidrGov yE-
ysvdOai Qaydvov, ovk en ds vitsp dXXov zivoi itapd rov dv^poaitov
kv duapT7]uadi yeyevT^HEVov oiov vitep ddrpoov, ov Se rcjj' adrpoov
itavroDi nafiapwv ovrcov evooittov rov Geov."

2 Dcr Bi'ief an die Hebraer erklart, p. 90.

3 Theo. Mops, in Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos commentarii Fragmenta, Migne,
Patrologiae cursus, torn. Ixvi. p. 955. Theodore's words are: '■^TeXotorarov
Si) ri itddxovdt evravOa, to joj/jz'S Geov evaXXdrovTEi yteii itoiovvreZ
xdpiTi Geov ov itpodexovre'i ry duoXov^ict riji Fpatp?}?, dXX' dito rov
jUTJ dvi'iEvai on itore ecpj-j ro x^p'i-'i Geov dSiacpopoo'^ tqaXsicpovvE'^ /.lEv
exEivo, riBevrEZ de to dojcovv avroii evhoXov Eivai itpoi naravo-
Tjdiv." He goes on to say that it was not Paul's custom, xdpiri Geov riOevat
d It X do i -using the expression as a pious commonplace — aXXd itdvrcDi ano'
Tivo? ajco/lofO/aS Xoyov; which is quite true of Paul and of all the New
Testament writers, and favours the interpretation given above.

34 The HtLmiliatioii of Christ.

ing, from sheer inability to assign a suitable and worthy-
sense to the reading in the received text, while such an in-
terpretation as I have ventured to suggest was open to
him. Is it, then, really an inadmissible thought, that God
showed favour to Christ in appointing Him to taste death
for every man ? is it out of keeping with the general strain
of this Epistle? does it not fit in naturally to what goes
before and to what comes after ? Was it not worth while
to point out to persons scandalized by the humiliation of
Christ, that what to vulgar view might seem a mark of
divine disfavour, was, in truth, a signal proof of divine
grace; that even in appointing the Son of man to go
through a curriculum of suffering, God had been mindful of
Him, and had graciously visited Him, opening up to Him
the high career of Captain of Salvation ? And how are we
to understand the assertion following, that it became Him
who is the first cause and last end of all to perfect the
Captain of Salvation by suffering, if not as a defence of the
bold idea, contained, as it appears to me, in the preceding
verse ? The import of that assertion is simply this: The
means and the end of salvation are both worthy of the
Supreme, by whom and for whom all events in time happen;
the end manifestly and admittedly — for who will question
that it is worthy of God to lead many sons to glory ? — the
means not less than the end, though at first they may
appear to compromise the dignity both of the Supreme
Cause and of His commissioned Agent. It was honourable
for the Captain of Salvation to taste of death in the prose-
cution of His great work; it was an honour conferred upon
Him by God the Father to be appointed to die for such a
^purpose.

This, then, is another truth, besides the Jiomoiisia of
Christ's humanity with ours, which we learn from the
PIpistle to the Hebrews: that Chrisfs Jmmiliation is at the
same time in an important sense His glorification; that it is
not vi\Qx€\.y follozvedhy a state of exaltation, according to the
doctrine of Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians, but car-
ries a moral compensation within itself; so that we need
not hesitate to emphasize the humiliation, inasmuch as the
more real and thorough it is, the greater the glory and

Christological Axioms. 35

honour accruing- to the humbled One. The glory is that
of one " full of grace and truth," manifested not in spite of,
but through His humiliation made visible by the Incarna-
tion and the human life of the Son of God, as the Apostle
John testifies when he says in the beginning of his Gospel:
" The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we
beheld His glory." The evangelist explains, indeed, that
the glory of which he speaks is the glory as of the Only-
begotten of the Father; but he does not mean by that the
glory of metaphysical majesty visible through the veil of
the flesh in consequence of its doketic transparency. He
means the glory of divine love which the Only-begotten,
who was in the bosom of the Father, came forth to reveal,
and of which His state of humiliation on earth was the
historical exegesis. It has, indeed, been confidently as-
serted by certain writers that John knows nothing of a
state of humiliation, — that the Incarnation of the Word is
for Him not an abasement, but a new means of revealing
His glory, the representation of Christ's death in his Gospel
as an exaltation or a glorification being adduced as con-
clusive proof of the fact; and Protestant scholastic theo-
logians have been severely blamed for overlooking or
ignoring the undeniable truth. It is a characteristic illus-
tration of the haste and one-sidedness of modern criticism/
As if the two ideas of glorification and humiliation were
absolutely incompatible; as if John, the apostle of love,
was not a very likely person to comprehend their compati-
bility; as if the things alleged in proof of his ignorance of a
state of humiliation did not rather prove his complete
mastery of the truth now insisted on, viz. that the humilia-
tions of Christ were on the moral side glorifications ! The
glory of which John speaks is that of divine grace revealed
in word, deed, and suffering, to the eye of faith. This
glory the Only-begotten won by renpuncing the compara-
tively barren glory of metaphysical majesty. Thus, in be-
coming poor. He at the same time enriched Himself In
the words of Martensen, " Because only in the state of
humiliation could He fully reveal the depths of divine love,
and because it was by this His poverty that He made all
> Vide Reuss, T/iiologie Chretienne, ii. 455.

36 The Humiliation of Christ.

rich, it may be said that as the Son of man He first took
full possession of His divine glory; for then only is love in
full possession when it can fully communicate itself, and
only then does it reveal its omnipotence, when it conquers
hearts, and has the strong for a prey."^

The foregoing discussion of the passages in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, bearing on the subject of the humiliation of
Christ, thus yields us the following additions to the list of
elementary truths: —

7. The service Christ came to render. His vocation as the
Captain of Salvation, or the Sanctifier, was such as to in-
volve likeness to men in all possible respects, both in nature
and in experience; a likeness in nature as complete as if
He were merely a human personality; a likeness in ex-
perience of temptation, and, in general, of subjection to the
curse resting on man on account of sin, limited only by
His personal sinlessness.

1/ 8. Christ's whole state of exinanition was not only worthy

to be rewarded by a subsequent state of exaltation, bu.t
was in itself invested with moral sublimity and dignity; so
that, having in view the honour of the Saviour, we have no
interest in minimizing His experience of humiliation, but,
on the contrary, are concerned to vindicate for that ex-
perience the utmost possible fulness, recognising no limit
to the descent except that arising out of His sinlessness.

And now, having furnished ourselves with this series of
axioms, our next business must be to use them as helps in
forming a critical estimate of conflicting Christological and
Soteriological theories. But before entering on this,' the
main part of our undertaking, it will be expedient here to
indicate the plan on which our subsequent discussions
will be conducted. It will not be necessary, for the
purpose I have in view in these lectures, that I should
treat with scholastic accuracy of the different stages
or stations in the status exinanitionis. I do not know
that for any purpose such a mode of treatment would
be of much service. I question, indeed, whether exactitude
in handling this theme be practicable; at all events, it is

\ certain that anything approaching to exactitude is not to

' Die Christllche Dogmatik, p. 246,

Christological Axioms. 37

be found in dogmatic systems. In the works of the lead-
ing dogmaticians the stages of our Lord's humiliation are
very variously enumerated, though, of course, certain feat-
ures are common to all the schemes. Occasionally con-
fusion of thought is discernible, — acts being confounded
with states, and generals treated as particulars. The In-
carnation, e.g., is sometimes reckoned to the state of ex-
inanition, whereas it is in truth the efficient cause of the
whole state, the original act of gracious condescension
whereof the state of humiliation is the historical evolution
and result. An instance of the other sort of confusion,
that of turning a general into a particular, may perhaps be
found in the answer given in the Shorter Catechism to the
question referring to Christ's humiliation, where the " wratl?
of God" comes in, apparently as a particular experience,
like " the cursed death of the cross" mentioned immedi-
ately after; while the expression, though peculiarly appli-
cable to particular experiences, really admits of being
applied to the whole state of humiliation as a designation
thereof from a certain point of view, as in fact it is applied
in the Heidelberg Catechism.^

Instead, therefore, of attempting an exact enumeration
of the stations, I propose to consider the whole state of
humiliation under these three leading aspects: the physical,
the ethical, and the sotcriological.

Under the first of these aspects we shall have to consider
the bearing of the category of humiliation on Christ's
person. The Son of God became man, the Word was made
flesh, the Eternally-begotten was born in time of the Vir-
gin; what is the dogmatic significance of these facts in
reference to the person of the Incarnate One .''

Under the second aspect, the ethical, we shall have an
opportunity of contemplating the incarnate Son of God as
the subject of a human experience involving moral trial,
and supplying a stimulus to moral development. Christ
was tempted in all points like as we are, and He was per-
fected by suffering; in what sense, and to what extent, can

> Qiiaestio 11 . Quid credis, cum dicis, passus est? Eum todo quidem vitae
suae tempore quo in terra egit, praecipue vero in ejus extreme, iram Dei ad versus
peccatuni universi generis humani, corpore et anima sustinuisse.

38 The Humiliation of Christ.

temptation and perfecting be predicated of One who was
without sin ?

Under the third aspect we shall have to consider Christ
as a servant, under law, and having a task appointed
Him, involving humiliating experiences various in kind
and degree.

To the physical aspect four lectures will be devoted. One
will treat of the ancient Christology, the formula of Chal-
cedon being taken as the view-point for our historical sur-
vey; a second, of the Christologies of the old Lutheran and
Reformed Confessions; a third, of the modern kenotic
theories of Christ's person; a fourth, of modern humanistic
views of Christ's person, which practically evacuate the
idea of the Humiliation of all significance by regarding the
Subject thereof merely as a man, whether as the Perfect
Ideal Man, or, as in the case of the naturalistic school of
theologians, not even so much as that.^ The other two
aspects of our Lord's humiliation will occupy each a sin-
gle lecture.

' This lecture was not delivered, and appears in this edition for the first time.

LECTURE II.

THE PATRISTIC CHRISTOLOGY.

The Christology of the ancient Church took final shape at
the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, in the following for-
mula:— " Following the holy Fathers, we all with one
consent teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Deity, and the same per-
fect in humanity, truly God, and the same truly man, of
reasonable soul and body, of the same substance with the
Father as to His divinity, of the same substance with us
as to His humanity; in all things like to us, except sin;
before the ages begotten of the Father as to His Deity,
but in the latter days for us, and for our redemption, begot-
ten (the same) of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, as
to His humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-
begotten, manifested in two natures, without confusion,
without conversion, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinc-
tion of natures being by no means abolished by the union,
but rather the property of each preserved and combined
into one person and one hypostasis; not one severed or
divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and
Only-begotten, viz. God, Logos, and the Lord Jesus
Christ."^

' "Eva nai rov avzov o^oXoyslv viov rov nvpiov r]i.iwv ''lr]6ovv
Xpidrov 6vH(pMVcoi ditavTEi IxSidddKojiiEv, TsXeiov, rov avvov Iv
Qsorrjri, nal rsXelov, rov avrdv ev dvQpooTtori/ri- 6/ioov6iuv tcS
narpi Hard ryv Qsorj^ra, xai ojiioovdiov rov avvov j)i.uv Hard rrjv
avf)pGOTt(Jrrfra, Kara icdvra of.ioiov r/jiilv X^P^^ dj.iapriai . . . ek Ma-
piai rfji TtapOsvov, r?/? Osoronov . . . sva xai ro^' avrdv XpiGrov,
t.K 5v(Sv (pudEGov [a/, kv 8vo (pudsdiv) dduyxvtoai, drpiitrooi, ddiai-

40 The Hitmiliatioii of Christ.

This famous creed, formulated by the Fourth General
Council, was the fruit of two great controversies, the Apol-
linarian and the Nestorian; the one having reference to the
integrity of our Lord's humanity, the other to the unity of
His person. In these two controversies all parties may be
said to have been animated by an orthodox interest, and
to have been sincerely desirous to hold fast and establish
the Catholic faith. All accepted cordially the Nicaean
Creed, and sought to construct a Christology on a Trin-
itarian foundation. These remarks apply even to Apolli-
naris, who, however much he may have failed in his at-
tempt at a construction of Christ's person, seems to have
meant that attempt to be a defence of the Christian doctrine
of the Incarnation against its assailants. He was a man
held in high esteem by his contemporaries for his learning,
piety, and eminent services to the cause of truth, till in his
old age he promulgated his peculiar Christological theory.
Epiphanius speaks of him as one who had always been
beloved by himself, Athanasius, and all the orthodox; so
that when he first got tidings of the new heresy, he could
hardly believe that such a doctrine could emanate from
such a man.^ He had done excellent service as champion
of the Nicaean symbol against the Arians, and had given
a still more conclusive proof of his zeal in that cause by
suffering exile on account of his opposition to the Arian
heresy.^

The theory of Christ's person propounded by Apollinaris
was this, that the humanity of Christ did not consist of a
reasonable soul and body, as in other men, but of flesh and
an animal soul without mind, the place of mind being
supplied in His case by the Logos. Of the inner genesis
of this theory in its author's mind we have no accounts,
and we can only conjecture what were its hidden roots.

Among these may probably be reckoned familiarity with,

•

fjsrco? axoopi'droai yvcopiZojiCSvov ovSa/iov rrji rwv givdscov dioccpopai
dvr/pr/j:i£V}/i did tijv evoodiv, dcjZojusv?^^ Ss jtidXXov riji idiuTTiroi eua.-
Tepai (pvdEGoi, Hal eii ev TtpodooTCov xai i-iiav vTt66ra6iv 6vvTpExov'
drji, ovK Eli di'o 7Cp66oana jneptZoi-iEvov ifj SiaipovjiiEvov, dA.X' era Hal
Tov avTov VLov, Hal /.lovoyEvrj &e6v Xoyov Kvpjov'h/dovv Xpidrov

• Adv. Haereses, lib. iii. torn, ii.; Dimoeritae, c. 2, see also c. 24.

2 Adv. Haereses, lib. iii. torn, ii.; Dimoeritae, c. 24.

The Patristic Christology. 41

and partiality for, classic Greek literature, and more espe-
cially the works of Plato;^ antagonism on other matters to
Origen, the first among the early Fathers to give prom-
inence to the doctrine that Christ's humanity was endowed
with a rational soul, predisposing to a diverse way of think-
ing on that particular subject likewise; and above all, de-
termined hostility to the opinions concerning the person of
the Saviour, characteristic of the Arian heretics. So far as
one can judge from contemporary representations, and from
the fragments of the work on the Incarnation which have
been preserved, the Apollinarian theory was attractive to
the mind of its inventor chiefly on these accounts: as en-
abling him to combat successfully the Arian doctrine of the
fallibility of Christ; as ensuring the unity of the person of
Christ, with which the doctrine of the integrity of His hu-
manity seemed incompatible; and as making the Incarna-
tion a great reality for God, involving subjection of the di-
vine nature to the experience oi suffering. As to the first,
the Arian doctrine of the person of Christ was, that in the
historical person called Christ appeared in human flesh the
very exalted, in a sense divine, creature named in Scripture
the Logos, — the Logos taking the place of a human soul,
and being liable to human infirmity, and even to sin, inas-
much as, however exalted, He was still a creature, therefore
finite, therefore fallible, rpsTrrJs, capable of turning, in the
abuse of freedom, from good to evil. Apollinaris accepted
the Arian metJiod of constructing the person, by the ex-
clusion of a rational human soul, and used it as a means of
obviating the Arian conclusion, which was revolting to his
religious feelings. His reply to the Arian was in effect
this: " Christ is, as you say, the Logos appearing in the
flesh and performing the part of a human soul; but the
Logos is not a creature, as you maintain; He is truly

' An interesting evidence of tliis is supplied in the fact, that when the Emperor
JuHan interdicted the reading of the classic poets and orators in the Christian
schools, in tlie year 362, Apollinaris, along with his father, set himself to provide
a kindred literature in the shape of versions of the Scriptures, the father taking
up the Old Testament, and turning the Pentateuch into heroic verse, in imitation
of Homer, and doing other portions into comedies, tragedies, and lyrics, in imita-
tion of Menander, Euripides, and Pindar; while the son look up the New Testa-
ment, and turned the Gospels and Epistles into dialogues, in the style of Plato.

42 The Humiliation of CJudst.

divine, eternally begotten, not made, and therefore morally
infallible." In no other way did it seem to him possible
to escape the Arian mutability {rpEitvov), for he not only
admitted the fallibility of all creatures, however exalted,
but he believed that in human beings at least a rational
soul, endowed with intelligence and freedom, not only may,
but must inevitably fall into sin. Freedom, in fact, usually
supposed to be a distinction of the human mind, exalting
it in the scale of being above the lower animal creation,
was in his view an evil to be got rid of, — and accordingly
he sought to get rid of it, in the case of Christ, by denying
that He had a human mind, and ascribing to Him only an
immutable divine mind which, to quote his own words,
" should not through defect of knowledge be subject to the
flesh, but should without effort bring the flesh into harmony
with itself"^ (as its passive instrument).

As to the second advantage believed to be gained by the
theory, that, viz., of securing the unity of Christ's person,
Apollinaris contended that, on the supposition of the two
natures being perfect, the unity could not be maintained.
" If," said he, " to perfect man be joined perfect God, there
are two, not one: one, the Son of God by nature; another,
the Son of God by adoption."- On the other hand, he held
that his theory gave one person, who was at once perfect
man and perfect God, the two natures not being concrete
separable things, but two aspects of the same person.
Christ was true God, for He was the eternal Logos mani-
fest in the flesh. He was also true man, for human nature
consists of three component elements, body, animal soul,
and spirit, and all these were combined, according to the

' Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Apollinarcm, c. 40. The words of Apollinaris are:
OvH apcc 6(a!^erai to avBpaoTtivov ydvoi Si dvaX/jrpEoo'. vov, xal uXov
ai^OfJoJTtov, dXXd did 7tpo(jX7'/tpEGOi dapnoi, 7} (pv6iH6v /.lev to 7)yEuo-
yfi/edOai (whose nature it is to be ruled) eSsiro ds drpsTtTov vou, /<>/ itTo-
iriTtrovToi avt-^ Sid kTtj6vr}i.Lo6vi'7]'i ddOeveiav, dXAd dvvapuo'^ovToi
auTr'ii' dfSia6t coi kavTcS. All the accounts of the views of Apollinaris agree
in ascribing; to him the strange, almost Manicnaean, doctrine, that freedom, the
attribute of a rational soul, necessarily involved sin. Vid. Athanasius, De Incar-
natione Christi (near the beginning): oitov ydp TsXetoi dyBpooTtoi (complete
man, metaphysically) exei nai ducxpTia; also De SahUari Adventu yesu
Christi, siil) init. Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, 1. iii. t. ii. ; Dimoeritae, c. 26.

2 Greg. cc. 39, 42.

The Patristic Christology. 43

theory, in the person of Christ; while, on the common the-
ory, there were four things combined in Him, whereby He
became not a man, but a man-God,* a monstrum, resem-
bling the fabulous animals of Greek mythology. True, it
might be objected that the third element in the person of
Christ, the nouSy was not human but divine. But Apolli-
naris was ready with his reply. " The mind in Christ," he
said in effect, " is at once divine and human; the Logos is
at once the express image of God and the prototype of hu-
manity." This appears to be what he meant when he as-
serted that the humanity of Christ was eternal, — a part of
his system which was much misunderstood by his oppo-
nents, who supposed it to have reference to the body of
Christ.^ There is no reason to believe that Apollinaris
meant to teach that our Lord's flesh was eternal, and that
He brought it with Him from heaven, and therefore was
not really born of the Virgin Mary; though some of his ad-
herents may have held such opinions. His idea was, that
Christ was the celestial man; celestial, because divine; man,
not merely as God incarnate, but because the Divine Spirit
is at the same time essentially human. In the combination
whereby Christ's person was constituted there was thus
nothing incongruous, though there was something unique;
the divine being fitted in its own nature, and having, as it
were, a yearning to become man. This was the speculative
element in the ApoUinarian theory misapprehended by
contemporaries, better understood, and in some quarters
more sympathized with, now.^

The third advantage accruing from his theory, that of
making God in very deed the subject of a suffering human
experience, Apollinaris reckoned of no less value than the
other two. It seemed to him of fundamental importance,

1 Greg. c. 49.

2 So Gregory Nys., Athanasius, and Epiphanius: in the works referred to in
previous note.

3 See Dorner, Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. p. 372 (Clark's translation).
Dorner's account of the ApoUinarian theory is very full, able, and candid, and,
as far as I can judge, satisfactory; though, as we have only fragments to judge from,
there must always be uncertainty on some points. P'or passages out of the wo k
of Apollinaris bearing on the subject of the affinity of the divine and the human
natures, see cap. 48-55 in Greg. Adv. Apoll. Baur's account {Die Lehre von
der Dreidnigkeit, vol. i.) is less reliable.

44 The Humiliation of Christ'

in a soteriological point of view, that the person of Christ
should be so conceived of, that everything belonging to
His earthly history, both the miracles and the sufferings,
should be predicable directly and exclusively of the divine
element in Him. On this account he was equally opposed
to the Photinian and to the ordinary orthodox view of
Christ's person: to the former, because it made Christ merely
a divine man (a7'0/3&37ro? tVeeo?),^ the human, not the divine,
being the personal element; to the latter, because it virtu-
ally divided Christ into two persons, a divine and a human,
referring to the divine only the miracles of power and
knowledge, and ascribing to the human everything of the
nature of suffering. On either theory, it appeared to him,
the end of the Incarnation remained unaccomplished; man
was not redeemed, unless it could be said that God tasted
death. A man liable to the common corruption cannot
save the world; neither can we be saved, even by God. un-
less He mix with us. He must become an impeccable man,
and die, and rise again, and so destroy the empire of death
over all; He must die as God, for the death of a mere man
does not destroy death, but only the death of one over
whom death cannot prevail.^ Such thoughts as these ap-
peared to Apollinaris arguments in favour of his theory;
for he maintained that on the common theory the divine
had really no part in Christ's sufferings;* a statement not
without some plausibility in reference to the orthodox
Fathers, whose views regarding the impassibility of the di-
vine nature were very rigid. To rectify this defect was a
leading, we may say the leading, aim of the new Christol-
ogy. Gregory of Nyssa, in his polemical treatise against
Apollinaris, states that the whole scope of the work in
which the latter promulgated his opinions was to make the
deity of the only-begotten Son mortal, and to show that
not the human in Christ endured suffering, but the impassi-

' Greg. c. 6: To avOpmitov evBeov zov Xpidruv ovojitdZsiv, hvavriov
Eivai raJi aTTodroXiHcui dzSadxaXiaii- aXXorpiov Ss rojK dvyoSwv
JlavA-Ov di (of Samosata) xai. ^odteivov xai McxpHsXAov rrji roiaurrf?
diadrpoqirji xarap^ai (these men began this perverse way of speaking of
Christ).

« Greg. cap. 51, 52. 3 Greg. cap. 27.

The Patristic Ckristology, 45

ble and unchang"eable nature in Him, converted to partici-
pation in suffering ^

It is easy to understand what a fascination a theory like
the foreg'oing' would have for a speculative mind; nor are
we surprised to learn that, on its being promulgated, it was
received with enthusiasm by many. It was a theory whose
appearance in the course of doctrinal development was to
be looked for, and in some respects even to be desired; and
it could not have an author and advocate better qualified
by his gifts and character to do it full justice, and secure
for it the respectful and serious consideration of the Church,
than it found in Apollinaris. Yet the defects of this theory
are very glaring. One radical error is the assumption that
to get rid of sin we must get rid of a human mind in Christ.
Gregory of Nyssa, referring to the apostolic dictum,
" tempted in all points like as we are, without sin," very per-
tinently remarks, parenthetically, " but mind is not sin." *
If it be sin, then, to be consistent, the theory ought to take
away mind not merely from Christ, but from human nature
itself. Yet Apollinaris is so far from doing this, that he
represents mind {vovs) as the leading element in human
nature (ro uvpic^iTaTov^.^ It is because vovi is ro uvfuoDvazov
that its omission is necessary in order to secure the 7inity
of Christ's person. If Christ consists of two perfect, that
is, complete, unmutilated natures, then, according to Apolli-
naris, He is two persons, not one. It thus appears that to
the metapliysical perfection of human nature vovi is indis-
pensable, while for its ;//t?r«/ perfection the removal of the
same element is equally indispensable; a view which on the
one hand involves a Manichaean attitude towards the first
creation, and on the other hand makes a theory of sanctifi-
cation impossible. The old man is inevitably bad because
he is free; and the new man is to be made good, either by
the mutilation of his nature, or by a magical overbearing
of his nature by divine power.

Another manifest defect in the theory is, that it adopts

' Grec;. cap. 5.

2 Cap. II: 6 5e vovi duaprla ovh fJjtj.

3 Greg. Nys. Adv. Apoll. c. 23: Christ was ovk avOpcoTTO'^, a'A/V Goi av-
QpaoTtoi 8ioTi ovk duoovdtoi rcJ dvQpojTto) Hard ro xvpiGorarov.

46 The Hufniliation of Christ.

means for excluding the possibility of sin in Christ, which
defeat another of its own chief ends, that, viz., of making
the Divine partaker of suffering. Place is found for the
physical fact of death, but no place is found for the ■Jiiorai
suffering connected with temptation. Christ is so carefully
guarded from sin, that He is not even allowed to know
what it is to be tempted to sin. The author of the theory
is so frightened by that Arian scarecrow, the zpEitroi', that
he solves the problem of Christ's sinlessness by annihilating
the conditions under which the problem has to be worked
out. There is no human nous, no freedom, no struggle; the
fragment of human nature assumed yields itself passively
to the sweet control of the Divine Spirit, which dwells
within it as its active principle; ^ the so-called temptations
and struggles recorded in the Gospels are reduced to a show
and a sham, and a cheap virtue results, devoid of all human
interest, and scarcely deserving the name. It is true
Apollinaris did what he could to prevent this consequence,
and to make Deity enter fully and really into the conditions
of human life, by regarding the Incarnation as involving
for the Logos a self-division {SiaifjE6ii), by which He en-
tered into an inequality with Himself, and was at once in-
finite and finite, impassible and capable of becoming par-
taker in human sufferings and conflicts; not. however, by a
physical necessity, but by a free act of love3 But this de-
vice of a double aspect in the Logos falls short of the pur-
pose. To arrive at the result aimed at — a real and full
participation in suffering, — the theory must go further, and

' Greg. Nys. Adv. Apoll. c. 41: (i(hd6rcoi, cpri6i, rr'iv ddpua 7/ Baon/i
npoddystiXt. Gregory takes af3id6rooi as meaning freely: v6 dftiadrov,
Sr/Xcxd?'/, TO EHivdiov Xeyei. But Apollinaris uses the word to express the
pliancy of the flesh, resulting from its having no will of its own. The flesh was
literally as clay in the hands of the Logos as the Potter.

■- Such seems to be the meaning of the following obscure extracts from Apolli-
naris in Gregory's work, c. 29: ^laifiojy f.iev rrjv kvepyeicxv xcxrd 6d/jHcx,
I'^idcSi" 8i uaid nvEvua . . . "Otcep f^sz rtfv ev dvrdj.iEi TtdXir ido-
Tt/ra uai zt)v uard ddpua zfji tvEpyEia'i diaipediv c. 58: 'O ^ajrr/p
7t£7tovOE TtElvav, Hal di'ipcxv, Hal Hauarov, nal dycaviav, nai XvTtt/y
. . . Kai Tta6x_Ei to ditapddEHzov TcdOuvi, ovh avdynij (pvdEoji d/iov-
X?}rov, HaOdyiEp dvOpooTroi, aAXd duoXovBicx. qiv6£ooi. Gregory looks
upon the words from ovh dydyn'g as unintelligible, and asks what is the differ-
ence between necessity of nature and consequence of nature.

The Patristic Christology. 47

convert the Logos into an ordinary human soul, having the
advantage of starting on its career free from sinful bias, but
exposed like other souls to temptation, and possessing only
a power not to sin {posse 11011 peccare), and this would bring
it round to meet the opposite extreme, the hated Arian
fallibility.

The argument against the Apollinarian theory was con-
ducted by the Fathers chiefly from a soteriological point of
view. Gregory Nazianzen put "the matter in a nut-shell
when he said: " That which is not assumed is not healed." '
The patristic theory of redemption was, that Christ re-
deemed man, so to speak, by sample, presenting to God in
His own person the first-fruits of a renewed humanity.
Athanasius contrasts the Apollinarian and the orthodox
theories of redemption thus: " Ye say that believers are
saved by similitude and imitation, not by renovation, or by
first-fruits." "' Salvation being by first-fruits, of course the
Saviour must be physically like His brethren in soul as
well as in body, otherwise the sample would not be like
the bulk. As Cyril put it: Christ must take flesh that He
might deliver us from death; and He must take a human
soul to deliver us from sin, destroying sin in humanity by
living a human life free from all sin, — rendering the soul
He assumed superior to sin by dyeing it, and tinging it
with the moral firmness and immutability of His own divine
nature.^ But while insisting on this view of salvation, the
opponents of Apollinaris pointed out that even on his own
soteriological theory it behoved Christ to assume a perfect
humanity. How, asked Athanasius very pertinently, can
there be imitation tending to perfection unless there be
first a perfect exemplar .'' *

' Epist. I, ad Cledonium: to yap ditpodXrjTtrov aOspcXTtswov.

^ De Salutari Adventu yesu Christi (about the middle): 'yi/lAa XiytXE xiy
ouoiaidEi nai r^ juKitjdsi 6QoZ,EdQai rovi TCidrsvovrai, Hal ov r-^ ava-
Haivi6Ei, xai rif dnapx^-

' De Jncarnationc Unigenili, torn. viii. Opera, Migne, p. 1214.

4 De Incarnatione Christi (near the beginning): ui^rjdii Sa itcoi dv yeyoivo
Ttpoi rsXeiorjita, jin} npovTtap^ddrj'i t^5 dvEvSsovi raXEtorrjzoi. On
Hie ApolHnarian theory of redemption, see Dorner, who, in opposition to Baur and
Mohler, denies that it was a mere doctrine of imitation. Cyril seems to have
looked on it in this light, for in the Dialogue on the Incarnation he makes one

48 The Humiliation of Christ.

The Nestorian controversy, which broke out about half
a century after the death of Apollinaris/ may be regarded
as the natural sequel of the controversy concerning the in-
tegrity of Christ's humanity, whereof a brief account has
just been given. The Church, by the voice of Councils and
of its representative men, having declared in favour of a
complete unmutilated humanity, the next question calling
for decision was, How do the two natures in Christ, the
divine and the human, stand related to each other ? On
this momentous question the Antioch school of theologians
took up a position diametrically opposed to that of ApoUi-
naris. Whereas Apollinaris had sacrificed the integrity of
Christ's humanity for the sake of the unity of His person,
the Syrian theologians, represented by Theodore of Mop-
suestia, and by his pupils, Nestorius, patriarch of Constan-
tinople, and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, seemed disposed
to sacrifice the unity of the person in favour of the integrity
of the humanity. Their attitude was substantially this:
they were determined at all hazards to hold by the reality
of the two factors, and especially of the humanity, the
latter being the thing assailed; and to admit only such a
union as was compatible with such reality. Christ must
be a man, at all events, whatever more; a man in all re-
spects, save sin, like other men, having a true body, a
reasonable soul, and a free will, liable to temptation, and
capable of real, not merely apparent, growth, not only in
stature, but in wisdom and virtue. Such was the Christ
they found in the New Testament, such the Christ who
could lay hold of human sympathies; in such a Christ,
therefore, they were determined to believe, both as men
devoted to exegetical studies, and as men of an ethical
rather than a theological bent of mind.

With the resolute maintenance of the reality of Christ's
manhood, the theologians of Antioch did not find it possible
to accept of any union of the natures, except one of an

' of the interlocutors ask: " What if they should say that our state needed only the
sojourning of the Only-begotten among us .'' but as He wished to be seen of mor-
tals, and to have intercourse with men, and to show to us the way of evangelic
life, He put on (economically) flesh like ours, as the divine in its own nature
cannot be seen." — Cy. Op., Migne, viii. p. 1212.
1 Between 380 and 392 A. D. ; exact date uncertain.

The PaU'istic Christology. 49

ethical character. They rejected a physical union (iVoo^rs
KaO' ov6iLxv) because it seemed to them inevitably to involve
a mixture of natures {hpadii), and therefore to lead either
to a dissipation of the humanity, or to a degradation of the
unchangeable divine element, or to both. In his animadver-
sions on the second of Cyril's twelve anathemas against
Nestorius (which condemns those who deny a union by
hypostasis, hypostasis being taken in the sense of substance),
Theodoret says: " If by union {xaB' V7t66rcx6iy) he means
that a mixture of l^esh and Deity has taken place, we con-
fidently contradict him, and charge him with blasphemy.
For of necessity confusion follows mixture; and confusion
ensuing, destroys the properties of either nature. For
things mixed do not remain what they were before. But if
mixture took place, God did not remain God, nor could the
temple (His humanity) be recognised as a temple; but God
was temple, and temple was God." ^ From jealousy of this
mixture, supposed to be taught by their opponents, the
Antiochlans disliked the term GsozoHoi (mother of God) ap-
plied to the mother of our Lord, which was the occasion of the
outbreak of the controversy, and became famous as tlie battle-
cry of orthodoxy in the fierce war against Nestorian heretics.
They did not absolutely deny the applicability of the epithet;
but they looked on it with disfavour,* as extremely liable to
abuse, and fitted to create the erroneous impression that
the Word literally became flesh; and they preferred to give
Mary the title of Xpi6ror6Hoi (mother of Christ), and to
Christ Himself the title Osotpofjoi (God-bearer) ; their idea of
the Incarnation being that Mary gave birth to a human
being, to whom, from the first moment of His conception,
the Logos joined Himself.^ This union, formed at the
earliest possible period, between the Logos and the man
Jesus, those who followed the Nestorian tendency described

Cyril. Apologiliciis contra Theodorctitni, pro. xii. capitibus, Anath. ii.
2 Cyril quoLes Nestorius, saying: If any simple person likes to call Mary (9f()-
TOHoi, I don't object; only don't let him call the Virgin a goddess, uoyov /(/}
■KoiF.iroo ri)v Tid.oSevov Beav. — Adv. Nestorium (Cy. Op., Migne, t. ix. p. 57).
Nestorius was jealous of the heathenish tendency of the name, mother of God, not
without reason. Theodoret, in his animadversions on Anathema i., condemning
those who deny to Mary the title 0EoraHoi, apologises for those who had been
jealous of ihe word by saying, " We, following the Gospel statement, assert that
God the Word was not naturally made flesh, or changed into flesh, but He as-

5o The Humiliation of Christ.

by a variety of phrases, all proceeding on the idea of an
ethical as opposed to a physical union. They called it an
inhabitation;' and the general nature of the inhabitation,
as distinct from that by which (jod dwells in all men,
through His omnipresent essence and energy, they indi-
cated by the phrase, " by good pleasure" {jio.^' Ev?>oKiav)\
and this indwelling by good pleasure in Christ they further
discriminated from God's indwelling in other good men, by
representing it as attaining in Him the highest possible
degree. This indwelling of the Logos in Christ was also
said to be according to fore-knowledge," the Logos choosing
the man Jesus to be in a peculiar sense His temple, because
He knew beforehand what manner of man He should be.
Such was the way Theodore of Mopsuestia, in particular,
viewed the union. Among other favourite phrases current
in the same school were such as these: union by conjunc-
tion ;' union by relation,* as in the case of husband and wife ;
union in worth, honour, authority;" union by consent of
will;" union by community of name;' and so forth; for it
were endless to enumerate the Nestorian tropes or modes
of union.

It is manifest from these and the like phrases that the
Nestorian manner of conceiving the person of Christ really
involved a duality of persons. In Christ were united by
physical juxtaposition and ethical affinity two persons: one,
the Son of God by nature; the other, a Son of God by
adoption. Yet Nestorius and his friends did not wish to
teach a duality of persons or of sons, and would not allow
their opponents to represent them as teaching such a
doctrine. Their position as defined by themselves was:
there are two hypostases, but only one person {npo6a)7tov^y
one Son, one Christ.* Nestorius, as quoted by his great

sunied flesh, and tabernacled among us, according to the word of the evangeh'st,
and the teaching of Paul, when he speaks of Christ taking the form of servant
{jnopq)r}r dovXov ?ia/3ojy)." — Cyril. Apolog. contra Theodoret. Anath. i. Op.
Migne, ix. p. 392. ' hvoiHr}6i<i.

2 nard itnoyvoiav. ^ ^vvacp^ia. * 'EvoD6ii 6x£tih}'j.

* xat' dqiav, uaO' 6/itori^cuxv, naO' avOevriav.

« xard ravrofiovXiav. '' waO' oi.iGavv^iav.

8 Cyril. Apo/og: contra Theodoret. Anath. iii.: ev hev TCpodooTtov nai sva
Tidv Hal Xpidrov ojnoXoyelv svds/Jei- 8vo Si raJ evcoOF.iocxi vTtodrd-
deii, el'rovy cpudsiiy Xsysiv ovk aronov, dXXd Har alviav djioXov^or.

The Patristic Christology. 5i

opponent Cyril, said: " There is no division as to conjunc-
tion, dignity, Sonship, or as to participation in the name
Qhrist; there is only a division of the Deity and the hu-
manity. Christ as Christ is indivisible; for we have not
two Christs, or two Sons: there is not with us a first and a
second, nor one and another, nor one Son and another Son;
but one and Ihe same is double, not in dignity, but in
nature."' Hence the question, Were Nestorius and those
who thought with him Ncstorians in the theological sense }
may be answered both affirmatively and negatively: nega-
tively, if you look to what they said they held and honestly
wished to hold; affirmatively, if you look to the logical consis-
tency of their system. They made Christ as much an indepen-
dent, self-subsistent man as if He were altogether distinct from
the Logos; they described the union between Him and the!
Logos by phrases implying only a very close moral af-
finity; so that the natural inference would seem to be,
that the Logos was personally as distinct from Jesus as
from any other good man, though more closely related
to Him than to any other man. But they refused to
draw the inference; they declared there were not in
Christ one and another (aAAoS kolI aX'ko'i), but only one
who was double.

The great opponent of the Antiochian Christology, Cyril,
archbishop of Alexandria, held its advocates responsible
for the logical consequences of their theory; and the strong
side of his polemic is the manner in which he brings great
principles to bear against the doctrine of a divided person-
ality. Specially noticeable is the use which he makes of
the idea of kenosis, in arguing against that doctrine.
Again and again the thought recurs in his various contro-
versial writings, that if the Logos did not becom.e man, but
merely assumed a man, then what took place was not a
kenosis of the Divine Subject, but, on the contrary, an ex-
altation of the human subject. Thus, in one place he says:
" If, as our adversaries think, the only-begotten Word of
God, taking a human being from the seed of David, pro-
cured that He should be formed in the holy Virgin, and
joined Him to Himself, and caused Him to experience

1 Cyril. Contra Ncstoriwn, lib. ii. c. v.

52 The Humiliation of Christ.

death, and, raising Him from the dead, conveyed Him up
to heaven, and seated Him on the right hand of God, —
vainly, in that case, as it appears, is He said by the holy
Fathers, and by us, and by all inspired Scripture, to have
become man; for this and nothing else John means when
he says, the Word became flesh {o\6yoi 6dpz,kyEy!'.vo). For
on this theory the whole mystery of the economy in the
flesh is turned to the contrary, and what we see is not the
Logos, being God by nature and coming from God, letting
Himself down to kcnosis, taking the form of a servant, and
humbling Himself; but, on the contrary, a man raised to
the glory of Deity, and to pre-eminence over all, and taking
the form of God, and becoming exalted to be an assessor
on the throne with the Father." i In another place we find
him arguing against the Nestorian doctrine of assump-
tion in favour of his own doctrine of union by hypostasis,
to the effect that the kenosis requires that the human at-
tributes should be predicable of the Divine Subject. " Do
, you think," he asks his opponent Theodoret, " that St. Paul
I meant to deceive the saints when he wrote, 'that, being
I rich, He became poor on our account'.-^ But who is the
' rich One, and how became He poor } If, as they make
bold to think and say, a man was assumed by God, how
can He who was assumed and adorned with preternatural
honours be said to have become poor .'' He only can be said
to have been impoverished who is rich as God. But how ?
we must consider that question. For, being confessedly
unchangeable in nature, He was not converted into the
nature of flesh, laying aside His own proper nature; but He
remained what He was, that is, God. Where, then, shall
we see the hum.ility of impoverishment .-' Think you in
this, that He took one like ourselves, as the creatures of
Nestorius dare to say } And what sort of poverty and
exinanition would that be which consisted in His wishing
to honour some man like us } For God is not injured in
any way by doing good. How, then, became He poor }
Thus, that being God by nature, and Son of God the
Father, He became man, and was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh, and subjected Himself to the servile,
J Quod units sit Christus, Opera, torn, viii., Migne, pp. I279-8,''..

The Patristic Christology. 63

that is, to the human measure;^ and having become man,
He was not ashamed of the measure of humanity. For,
not having refused to become like us, how should He refuse
those things by which it would appear that He had really
for our sakes been made like us ? If, therefore, we separate
Him from the humanities, whether things or words, we
differ in no respect from those who all but rob Him of flesh,
and wholly overturn the mystery of the Incarnation." ^
Supposing some one to object, that it was altogether un-
worthy of God to weep, to fear death, to refuse the cup,
he goes on to say: "When the exinanition appears mean
to thee, admire the more the charity of the Son. What
you call little. He did voluntarily for thee. He wept
humanly, that He might dry thy tears; He feared eco-
nomically, permitting the flesh to suffer the things proper
to it, that He might make us bold: He refused the cup,
that the cross might convict the Jews of impiety; He is
said to have been weak as to His humanity, that He might
remove thy weakness; He offered prayers, that He might
render the ears of the Father accessible to thee; He slept,
that thou mightst learn not to sleep in temptation, but be
watchful unto prayers. " *

I have made these quotations at some length, because,
while fully illustrating the style of Cyril's argumentation
from the kenosis against the Nestorian theory, they at the
same time set forth clearly his conception of the kenosis
as resulting from a hypostatical union, in virtue of which
all the humanities in Christ's earthly history were predica-
ble of the Logos as the personal subject. Looking now at
these passages and others of similar import from a contro-
versial point of view, there can be no doubt that they have
great argumentative force against the Nestorian view of
Christ's person as conceived by Cyril. Yet the advocates
of the controverted theory did not feel themselves mortally
wounded by such arguments. On the contrary, they in
turn argued from the keiiosis against their antagonist. In
his animadversions on Cyril's third anathema, which asserts

' SovXoTrpETtei vTte'Sv jus'rpov, rovredrt to avOpcoTtivov.

2 Apolog. contra Theodoret, pro XII. capitibus, Anath. x. torn. ix. p. 440.

3 Apolog. contra Theodoret. Anath. x. torn. ix. p. 441.

54 The Hiiiniliation of CJirist.

a physical as opposed to a merely moral union of the
natures, Theodoret objects that such a union makes the
kenosis a matter of physical necessity, instead of a volun-
tary act of condescension. " Nature," he says, "is a thing
of a compulsory character and without will. For example,
we hunger physically, not suffering this willingly, but by
necessity; for certainly those living in poverty would cease
begging if they had it in their power not to hunger. In
like manner we thirst, sleep, breathe by nature; for these
are all without will; and he who does not experience these
things, of necessity dies. If, therefore, the union of the
form of Son to the form of a servant was physical, then
God the Logos was joined to the form of a servant as
compelled by a certain necessity, not in the exercise of
philanthropy, and the universal Lawgiver shall be found
complying with compulsory laws, contrary to the teaching
of Paul, who says: ' He humbled Himself, taking the form
of a servant.' The words kavrdv iHsrcoda point to a volun-
tary act." ^ To the same effect John of Antioch, criticizing
the same anathema, speaking in the name of the whole
Syrian church, asks: " If the union is physical, where is the
grace, where the divine mystery ? For natures once formed
by God are subject to the reign of necessity." "

Now Cyril certainly did recognise a reign of physical law,
both in the constitution of Christ's person and in the
course of His incarnate history. He held that the person
was not secure against dissolution unless it were based on
physical laws, rather than on a gracious relation of the
Logos to the man Jesus, such as the Nestorian party ad-
vocated. ^ And he considered that the Logos, in becoming
man by a voluntary act, gave to physical laws a certain
dominion over Himself: took humanit}^ on the understand-
ing that its laws, conditions, or measures, were to be re-
spected. In this very act of voluntary self-subjection to

' Cyril. Ap. c. Thcod. Aiiath. iii. Anath. iii. runs: 'El ris, f-ni rou avoi
Xpidrov Siaipai rdi -uTtodrddsti usrd rijv svoodtv, jliovt^ dvvditraov
avrdi duvaqDeia rp xard ryv d^iav ijyovv avQEvricxv ^ Svvadraiar,
xai avxl ^tj //ctAAoj' dvvodov r?jv hcxO' 'sFCodir q)vdi7iriv.

2 Cyril. Apolog. pro XII. capitibus contra Orlentalcs, Anath. iii.

3 Quod umis sit Ckristtis, t. viii. p. 1296: ov yap dvvitoitvav ei'i dno
(iu\y)v, 6 j-tr/ qivdiHoTi ip?ipEidrai r6j.ioti.

The Patristic Christology. 55

the laws of humanity did the kenosis consist. By this
principle Cyril explained the facts of birth, growth in stature,
and experience of sinless infirmities, such as hunger, thirst,
sleep, weariness, etc., in the earthly history of the Saviour.
"It was not impossible," he says in one place, " for the
omnipotent Logos, having resolved for our sakes to become
man, to have formed a body for Himself by his own power,
refusing birth from a woman, even as Adam was formed;
but because that might give occasion to unbelievers to
calumniate the Incarnation, saying it was not real, there-
fore it was necessary that He should go through the ordi-
nary laws of human nature." ' With reference to physical
growth, he says in another place: " It was not impossible
that God, the Word begotten of the Fath-er, should lift the
body united to Him out of its very swaddling-clothes and
raise it up to the measure of mature manhood. But this
v/ould have been a thaumaturgical proceeding, and incon-
gruous to the laws of the economy ; for the mystery was ac-
complished noiselessly. Therefore, in accordance with the
economy. He permitted the measures of humanity to prevail
over Himself."^ In a third passage he applies the same
principle of compliance with the laws of humanity to ex-
plain a group of infirmities, including the appearance of
ignorance (a point of which I shall speak more particularly
forthwith). " With humanity, the only-begotten Word
bore all that pertains to humanity, save sin. But ignorance
of the future agrees to the measures of humanity ; therefore,
while as God knowing all, as man He does not shake Him-
self clear of the appearance of ignorance as suitable to
humanity. For as He, being the life of all, received bodily
food, not despising the measure of the kenosis (He is also
described as sleeping and being weary); so likewise, know-
ing all. He yet was not ashamed to ascribe to Himself
the ignorance which is congruous to humanity. For all
that is human became His, sih alone excepted." ^

' Adv. Nestor, lib. i. cap. i. t. ix. p. 22: kex'^ PV'^^'^ dvayxaiooi 8ia rdov

avOpOOTTlVt^i q3v6EQ0i VOJilCJV.

2 Q/tod iimis Christus, t. viii. p. 1332: 'ErsXsiro yap atpoq)r]ri to jiivd-
Tr'jpiov (a fine expression!). 'Hepiai dr/ ovv oiHovojuiKOJi roli zfji dvOpoO'
itorr/ro? fierpoti iqi' savrcp to xpavElv.

3 Adv. Anthropomorphitas, c. xiv, ; vid. Appendix, Note A.

56 The Humiliation of CJirist.

In advocating this reign of physical law, Cyril proclaimed
an important truth, and committed no offence against the
freedom of the Logos. His fault rather lay in restricting
the reign of law to the material sphere, excluding it from
the intellectual or moral. This in point of fact he did.
He recognised no real growth in wisdom or in character in
Christ. He felt, indeed, that the claims of the kenosis ex-
tended to the mind as well as to the body, and he made
every possible effort to satisfy those claims; but he did not
see his way to letting the intellectual and moral growth of
Christ be anything more than an appearance. The union
between the Logos and the humanity was so close and of
such a nature, in his view, that the Logos per se could not
be conceived as possessing knowledge of which the incar-
nate person was not also consciously possessed. If, as all
admitted, ignorance could not be predicated of the former,
neither could it be predicated of the latter. To ascribe to
Christ real ignorance was in effect to dissolve the union,
and to make Him a man connected with the Logos by an
intimate ethical relation. Cyril was fully sensible of the
critical importance of the problem, how the ascription to
Christ in the gospel history, of growth in knowledge as a
child, and of ignorance even in ripe manhood, was to be
understood. He returns to it again and again; he discusses
it in at least eight different places of his extant works,
sometimes at considerable length; he exercises his ingenuity
in inventing forms of language by which to express his
idea: but he never gets beyond appearance. The kenosis
is real in the physical region, it is doketic in the intellec-
tual. Practically the position in which Christ is placed is
this: the measures of the kenosis require Him to seem
ignorant, as ignorance belongs to the state Fie has as-
sumed— being an attribute of ordinary humanity; but the
Logos is incapable of so adapting Himself to the human
nature He has assumed, that»the ignorance of the thean-
thropic person shall in any case be real, even the child's
growth in knowledge being in reality only a gradual man-
ifestation to others of a knowledge already inwardly com-
plete. In every one of the passages in which Cyril discusses
the question, this is the way the case is put. Now he rep-

The Patristic Christology. 5y

resents Christ as tise/n//j/ pretending- not to know the day
of judgment, now as not shunning the appearance of igno-
rance as decent in one who had assumed humanity, now as
economizing or schematizing in speaking of Himself as
ignorant. The growth of the boy in knowledge is resolved
■ into a gradual revelation of Himself to the world, out of
respect to the physical law by which in ordinary men bodily
and mental growth progress together; this law in Christ's
case being complied with by a real growth of the body,
and by a studied appearance of growth in the mind. " We
teach," says Cyril, in his second oi'atio ad reginas, putting
the matter as precisely as possible, — "we teach that it
was agreeable to the measures of the kenosis that Christ
should receive bodily growth and gradual consolidation and
strengthening of the bodily organs, and likewise that He
should seem to be filled with wisdom; because it was most
meet that the manifestation of His indwelling wisdom
should keep pace with the increase in His bodily stature." '
At this point the views of Cyril stand in the sharpest
possible contrast to those of the Oriental theologians, who
took the Gospel statements in their plain, natural sense,
and believed that Christ grew in knowledge as well as in
stature, and made progress in virtue through real conflict
with temptation. The difference in this respect between
the two schools was the natural result of their respective
points of view. The Alexandrians started from the divine
side, and made the humanity as real as seemed compatible
with its hypostatic union to the Logos; the Orientals started
from the human side, and made the union between the man
and the Logos as intimate as was compatible with the re-
ality of the humanity. Both schools failed on different
sides: the Orientals, on the side of the unity of the person;
the Alexandrians, on the side of the reality of the human
nature and experience. Both failed from one cause — over-
confident dogmatism as to the conditions and possibilities

' The question concerning the knowledge of Christ being important, and the
views of Cyril having been misunderstood by some, e. g. Forbes in .his Ltstrv-c-
tiones historico-theologicae, I deem it advisable to give the passages in Cyril's work
bearing on the topic in full. These accordingly, eig'ht in ail, of which Forbes
quotes only three, the reader will find in Appendix, Note A, with an English
translation in parallel columns.

58 The Humiliation of Christ.

of the Incarnation. Both started from the assumption that
a union such as is implied in God becoming man, as dis-
tinct from that formed by God assuming a man, is not
compatible with a completely real human experience. It
would have been wiser in both to have accepted the facts,
whether they could explain them or not. Had Cyril, in
particular, taken this course, he would have escaped moral
and intellectual doketism; he would not have felt it neces-
sary to place Christ in the unworthy position of being-
obliged, out of regard to decency, to feign an ignorance
which was not real; he would have conceived it possible
that the Logos might be conscious of the child Jesus, while
the child was unconscious of the Logos, or entirely without
self-consciousness; he would not only have taught a gradual
revelation of the Logos through Jesus to others, but, with
his predecessor Athanasius, he would have admitted that
the Logos revealed Himself to Himself in Jesus, ^ and grew
in Himself; the Wisdom of God building in Jesus a house
for Himself, and causing the house to make progress in
wisdom and grace. How these things can be, it may be
difficult, or even impossible, to explain — more ways of ex-
plaining them than one have been proposed; but we must
not suspend acceptance of facts till we have found a theory
which accounts for them; we must accept the facts first,
and seek for our theory at leisure.

The manner in which Cyril disposed of the problem of
mental growth may be regarded as an index of the general
character of his Christology. That Christology has been
characterized as physical rather than ethical;"' and it may
be further described as monophysitical in tendency, though,
it must be admitted, not avowedly, for its author repudi-
ated mixture and confusion of the natures, as earnestly as
Nestorius repudiated the charge of teaching two Sons.'
Cyril looked on the divine and the human natures as two

' Oratio iii., Con. Arianos, c. 52: Ka.i tov Xoyov cpavspovvtoZ havrov
eavrqS. Then a little below in the same place: EC XPV ^^ '^^ niQardoi ^srci
TOV dXjjOovi EiTtsiv, avToi kv savrca rtposHOTtra- 7/ 6oq}ioc yap coho-
dour/dei' eavf^ oiHov, xai hv avty, tov oihov TtpouoTtteiv litoiEi.

2 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 73.

5 Vid. Qiwd unus sit Christtis, p. 1260: ysyovEV avOpooitoi ovh sii ddpna.
rpaneii, y (pvp)x6v r) yipd6iv, 7} ri roj*' rotoutoov erepov vTCo^eiyai,

The Patristic Christolo^y. 59

elements, or things, as he sometimes calls them,^ so closely
connected that they were as one. He closes his treatise
on the unity of Christ's person, confessing one and the same
Son, of two things appearing ineffably as one somewhat out
of two j*^ and in another place he declares that the incarnate
nature of the Logos must be regarded as one after the
union, comparing the composite nature successively to that
formed by the union of body and soul in an ordinary man,
to a live coal, a pearl, and a lily; the Logos being the fire
in the coal, the brightness in the pearl, and the sweet odour
in the lily/ He betrays his monophysitic tendencies also
by occasional representations of the relation between the
two natures, somewhat akin to the Lutheran doctrine of
the communication of properties (comiminicatio idiomatiim).
He speaks of the humanity as deified;* of the Logos as col-
lecting both natures into one, and mixing up together the
properties of the two;' of John the Evangelist as, in the
preface of his first Epistle, almost gathering into one the
natures, and conducting the virtue of the properties of both,
as confluent streams into one common watercourse;*^ of the
fiesh of Christ as endowed with life-giving power.' On the
other hand, just as in the Lutheran doctrine of communi-
cation, while the divine nature communicates some of its
properties to the human, the human in turn communicates
nothing to the divine. The divine element remains im-
passible amid the sufferings of the humanity, as heat in a
mass of heated iron remains untouched by a stroke through

jta^Eii Se jitaXXoy savrov sli H£va)6iv, etc.; also p. I2g2: "Erepov fiev
Tt uai erepor Qeott/? nai (XvBponitov?]^ . . . dXXd i]v kv Xpidvcp ^svaj?
T£ uai vTtkp vovv Eii ivoTrjTO. 6vvd ed pajuTjHora 6vyx^'^^^'= Six^ ^<^i
TpoTfrji.

* TCpdynara, in Apolog. pro XII. cap. contra Orientales, Anath. iv.; Quod
unus sit Christus, p. 1254.

* Quod unus sit Christus, p. 1254.

3 Adv. Nestorium, lib. ii. pp. 60-62: f^iia ydp 7/5?; vositai cpvdi? jiisrd
TTJv £VG06iv t) avtov Tov Xoyov dEdapKooi-ievri.

* Thesaurus, Assertio 28, p. 429: ovxoo'i kv docpia itpoEKOTtvEv rj dvQpoo-
itorrji OsoTtoiovfiEvr/ 61 avvrjZ.

^ De Incarnatiotie Unigeniii, p. 1244.

^ De Incarnatione Unigeniti, p. 1249: /.lovovovxi T<ai dvvayEi'pcov rdi
(pvdEii, xai Eli juidydyHSiav dyoov r(^v ixarepoL TtpETtovroov iStoo^d-
Toav Tijv durajuty.

"> Adv. Nest. lib. iv. cap. v.: ddpxa Zoooitoiov (d Xoyoi) aTticptjVEv.

6o The Humiliation of Christ.

which the iron itself is injured.' The blending of the natures
issues in the weaker being-, so to speak, swallowed up by
the stronger. The humanity is still there; but it is so ex-
alted and, as it were, transformed by its connection with
divinity, that one may hardly dare speak of it as consub-
stantial with that of ordinary men.'

Such being the character and general tendency of the
Cyrillian type of Christology, it was a matter of course that
the Nestorian controversy should pass into the EtitycJiian
Phase, in which the question at issue was: Are there in the
one person of Christ two distinct natures, or only one .''
Concerning the opinions of Eutyches we have little exact
information; but we know enough to be able to say that he
had not the honour of originating a new and peculiar heresy.
Eutychianism, as expounded by the man from whom it
takes its name, was simply Cyrillianism gone mad — mon-
ophysitic tendencies carried to extremes, with the char-
acteristic extravagance of a monk who had brooded in his
cell over his pet views till they assumed in his heated brain
the form of fixed ideas. The party whom Eutyches repre-
sented, including the monks of Constantinople and Egypt,
and the unscrupulous bishop of Alexandria, Dioscuros, like
Cyril, laid a great, one-sided emphasis on the unity of the
person, and insisted on regarding all Christ's human ex-
periences as predicable of the Divine Subject who had
become incarnate. God, said they, was born; God died.
They did not mean by such statements to teach that God,
in becoming man, had been changed into flesh, or that the
divine nature was in itself passible. They do indeed seem
to have indulged in a style of expression which, strictly

' Quod iinus sit Chrisfus, p. 1357. Cyril apologizes for this metaphor, in in-
troducing it to illustrate how the divine nature remained impassible amid the suffer-
ings of Christ. Well he might; for the metaphor fails to do justice either to the
nature of God or to the nature of suffering. Of course the divine nature cannot
suffer as the body suffers; but there is a moral suffering of which God is capable
because He is love.

2 In one place {Quod units sit Christus, p. 1332) Cyril remarks that the Apostle
Paul sometimes seems to shrink from calling Christ a man, instancing those words
m the Epistle to the Galatians: "Paul, an apostle, not of men, nor by man, but
by Jesus Christ," Gal. i. i. It is significant that such an interpretation of Paul's
words should have occurred to Cyril's mind. It is a straw showing the current
of his thoughts.

The Patristic Christology. 6i.

interpreted, laid them open to the charge of teaching such
opinions, if we may rely on the accuracy of the representa-.
tion of their position given by Theodoret in the work en-
titled,. Eranistes, or Polymorphos, and manifestly directed
against Eutychian views, though Eutyches is nowhere
named. The title of this book sufficiently indicates the
opinion entertained by its author of the views it is intended
to controvert,* suggesting the idea of a piebald system of
heterogeneous tenets begged from sundry heresies. In ex-
plaining the name he had given his work, Theodoret illus-
trates his meaning by representing the parties whom he
has in his eye as borrowing from Marcion the appropriation
of the name Christ to God alone, from Valentine the birth
of the Logos by mere transition through Mary, from Apol-
linaris the union of divinity and humanity into one nature^
and from Arius and Eunomias the ascription of the passion
to the divinity of Christ.^ It is clear, however, that both in
the selection and in the explanation of his title, Theodoret
avails himself of a licence permissible in the dialogue form of
composition, and draws his characters in bold outline for
the sake of effect. His book is virtually a work of fiction,
not containing a historical account of the exact opinions of
certain individuals, but a free description of the affinities and
tendencies of these opinions, intended to show their advo-
cates the ultimate consequences to which they lead. Yet,
notwithstanding the high colouring of the preface, the author
allows it to appear clearly, in the course of the discussion
between the two interlocutors, that the beggar is not so
great a heretic as he at first seemed. The monk with the
parti-coloured garment has no theory as to how the Logos be-
came man. He simply says, " The Word became flesh; how,
He Himself knows."* Sticking to the words of the evan-
gelist, as Luther stuck to the words " this is my body " in
his sacramentarian controversy with Zuingli, he maintains
that Christ, though of two natures, had only one nature
after the union; but when asked how the two became one,
— whether by chemical union, as in the case of gold and
silver combining to form electron, — he replied that the union

' 'Eparidnj';, beggar; itoXvuopq>oi, many-shaped.

« Fid, TtpoXoyoi. 3 Dialogue i. p. 7 (Opera, Paris, 1642, vol. iv.).

62 The Humiliation of Christ.

is not of that kind, that it cannot be explained in words,
that it surpasses all comprehension; and only after being
further pressed for an answer does he venture to say, " the
divinity remains, and the humanity is absorbed by it as a
drop of honey is absorbed by the sea;"^ but when the
absorption took place, whether at the conception or after
the resurrection, he hardly can tell. He asserts that God
suffered; but he admits the divine impassibility, and repre-
sents God in Christ as suffering through the flesh, and
voluntarily, in gracious love to men."

It is plain from those representations that Eutyches had
no distinct definite conception of the constitution of our
Lord's person. He felt rather than thought on the subject
of Christology. He did not pretend to comprehend the
mystery of the Incarnation, but rather gloried in proclaim-
ing its incomprehensibleness. He knew that God and flesh
were altogether different things, and he believed that
Christ's flesh was real; but the divinity bulked so large in
his eye, that the humanity in comparison vanished into
nothing. And if compelled by fact to admit that the
hum.anity was still there, not drunk up like a drop of honey
by the sea of the divinity, he refused, at all events, to re-
gard it as on a level with ordinary humanity: reverence
protested against calling Christ's divine body consiibstan-
tial with the bodies of common mortals. It would have
been well had the course of events permitted such a man
to pass his life in obscurity. But it was otherwise ordered.
Eutyches became the representative of a theory which en-
gaged the attention of three Synods; being condemned by
the first, ^ approved by the second,* and re-condemned and
finally disposed of as a heresy by the third, the famous CEai-
mcnical Council of Chalcedon^ whose decree is quoted at
length at the commencement of the present lecture.

The policy of that Council was to steer a middle course
between Nestorianism and Eutychianism; the former being
conceived as teaching two persons in Christ, the latter as

1 Dialogue ii. pp. 67, 77. 2 DiOlogm iii. p. 121.

» Held at Constantinople, A.D. 448.

* Held at Ephesus, A.D. 499; called the Robber Synod on account of the vio
lent character of its proceedings.

The Patristic Christology. 63

teaching that there was not only but one person, but, more-
over, only one nature; the one nature being predominantly
divine, and, in so far as human, not like the nature of other
men. Between the two extremes, so conceived, there was
plenty of room for a middle course, and no very skilful
pilotage was needed to keep the vessel within the limits of
safe navigation. The pilot in this emergency, as is well
known, was the Roman Bishop Leo, whose letter to Flavian,
patriarch of Constantinople, concerning the errors of Euty-
ches, guided the deliberations and fixed the judgment of
the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, and thus became an
epoch-making document in the history of Christology.
The substance of that celebrated epistle is as follows: — •
The Son of God became man by birth from the Virgin
Mary, and in the incarnate Word two natures were com-
bined into one person, each nature retaining its distinct
property. For the deliverance of men from sin, an inviol-
able nature was united to a passible nature, that one and
the same Mediator between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus, might be able to die in the one, and might be in-
capable of dying in the other. Thus, in the entire and
perfect nature of a true man true God was born totiis in
suis, totus in nostris, the nostra including everything but
sin. This assumption of servile form by the Son of God,
while exalting the humanity of Christ, did not diminish
His divinity; for the kenosis by which the Lord of all willed
to become one of mortals was not a loss of power, but an
act of condescending compassion,'^ which, so far from intro-
ducing an alteration into God, only demonstrated the
unchangeableness of His will, which cannot be deprived of
its benignity, and which refused to be baffled by the wiles
of the devil aiming at the destruction of mankind. The
Incarnation, being a fulfilment of divine love, involved at
the same time for the Son of God jio loss^oLdiyiDe g:lQry.
He descended from the celestial abode, not receding from
the glory of His Father;" the immensity of His majesty
was simply veiled by the assumption of a servile form. On
the other hand, as God was not changed by compassion.

1 Inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis.— ^//.'■/. c. 3.

* De coelesti sede descendens, et a Paterna gloria non recedens. — Epist. c. 4.

64- The Humiliation of Christ.

so man was not consumed by dignity.' He who was true
God was also true man — there was no lie in the union; the
humility of the man and the altitude of Deity were co-ex-
istent in the same person. Each nature in Christ performed
in communion with the other what was congruous toJtself,
the Word doing what suited the Word, and the flesh what
suited the flesh ; the former coruscating with miracles, the lat-
ter submitting to injuries ; the Word not receding from equal-
ity in glory with His Father, the flesh not leaving the nature
of our race. While the natures continue distinct in their
properties, yet, in virtue of the unity of the person, things
are sometimes predicated of the one which in strictness
belong to the other. The Son of man is said to have
descended from heaven, in allusion to the Incarnation; and
the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried,
though He suffered these things not in His divinity, but in
the infirmity of human nature.^

It is easy to recognise in this letter of Leo the source of
the formula framed and adopted by the Council of Chalce-
don. The letter and the formula are virtually one From
the " totus in suis, totiis in nostris " of the letter comes the
" perfect in Deity and the same perfect in humanity " of the
formula; and the (x6vyXT^Too'i, drpETfrcaZ, aSiaipc'rooi, dxoo/jidrooi^
of the formula do but condense into four words the various
phrases scattered up and down the letter, in which the
writer sets forth the distinctness and integrity of the two
natures on the one hand, and their intimate, inseparable
union in one person on the other. If, now, we inquire how
far the letter and the formula together were fitted to put
an end to controversy, it must be admitted that they did
at least indicate the cardinal points of a true Christology,
in which all controversialists should agree. They laid down
these two fundamental propositions: Christ must be re-
garded as one person, the common subject of all predi-
cates, human and divine; and in Christ must be recognised

' Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione: ita homo non consumitur digni-
XaiQ.—Epist. c. 4.

* Propter hanc unitatem personae in utraque natura iiitelligendam, et Filius
hominis legitur descendisse de coelo, et rursus Filius Dei crucifixus dicitur ac se-
pultus. — Epist. c. 5.

' Without confusion, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.

The Patristic Christology. 65

two distinct natures, the divine and the human — the divine
not converted into the human, the human not absorbed
into the divine; the latter side of the second proposition,
the integrity and reality of the humanity, viz., being chief-
ly emphasized, as the state of the controversy required.
But they did little more than this. Leo and the Council
told men what they should believe, but they gave little aid
to faith by showing how the unity of the person and the
distinctness of the natures were compatible with each other;
aid which, if it could be had, was urgently needed, for the
whole controversy may be said to have arisen from a felt
inability to combine the unity and the duality, — those who
emphasized the unity failing to do justice to the duality,
and those who felt compelled to insist strongly on the in-
tegrity of Christ's humanity not knowing well how to rec-
oncile therewith the unity of His person. Aid of this kind
was not to be looked for, indeed, in the decree of a Coun-
cil, but it might perhaps have been reasonably expected
from ai. epistle which almost assumed the dimensions of a
theological treatise. Leo, however, makes no attempt at
a solution of the problem, but contents himself with stat-
ing its conditions. Certain points of critical importance
he passes over in silence. For example, he says nothing
on the question^oLChrist's, knowledge, with which Cyril
grappled so earnestly, though unsuccessfully. He does
not say whether ignorance and growth in wisdom are or
are not included under the phrase totiis in nostris; and the
omission is all the more noticeable that he does enter into
some detail on the properties of Christ's humanity, reckon-
ing among them birth, infancy, temptation, hunger, thirst,
weariness, and sleep. It would have been instructive to
know how the Roman bishop applied the formula totiis in
sills, totus in nostris to the category of knowledge; and in
case he reckoned omniscience among the S2ia, and ignor-
ance among the nostra, to know how he combined these
two opposites in one person, and how in this case each
nature performed that which was common to it in com-
munion with the other. From the style in which Leo ex-
presses himself concerning the divine in Christ, one rather
fears that he had no light to give on that subject. His

66 The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

doctrine of divine immutability is very rigid. The Son of
God in becoming man did not recede from the equality of
paternal glory/ — a statement not in harmony either with
the word or with the spirit of Scripture in speaking on the
humiliation of Christ, and, indeed, as Dorner has observed,*
not in keeping with a thought of Leo's own, occurring in
an earlier part of his epistle, viz., that the Incarnation does
not violate divine immutability, inasmuch as it is the deed
of a will which loved man at his creation, and which does
not allow itself to be deprived of its benign disposition
towards man, either through his sin or through the devil's
wiles. If God's unchangeableness be secured by the im-
mutability of His loving will, why guard His majesty in a
way that tends to make His love a hollow unreality .-* why
not let love have free course, and be glorified, even though
its glorification should involve a temporary forfeiture of
glory of another kind } From our Christological point of
view, that of the exinanition, this is a part of Leo's letter
with which we cannot sympathize. The doctrine of exin-
anition demands the unity of the person and the distinct-
ness of the natures, especially the reality and integrity of
the human nature; but it does not require us to guard the
Divine Majesty as the disciples guarded their Master from
the intrusion of the mothers with their children. With
reference to such zeal, the Son of God says: " Suffer me to
humble myself" Even Cyril understood this better than
Leo, for he spoke of the Son of God as somehow made less
than Himself in becoming man.^

On another subject Leo is silent — the question of the
personality of the human nature. He teaches the unity of
the person, but he does not say to which of the natures the
personality is to be appropriated, or whether it belongs to
both, or is distinct from both. Whether the humanity of
Christ was personal or impersonal, whether Christ was not

' Sicut verbum ab aequalitate Patemae Gloriae non recessit ita, etc. — Epist.
c. 4.

^ Doctrmc of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 88.

3 'TTtEpexovra /lev rcSv rfji HrideoD? i.isrpa)v gjJ ©soy eavrov 8e
ifooi jLiovovovxi >iO(.i i}rr(iDi.iEvov na^o Tte.cpr]ve.v avQpoonoZ. — Ad reginai
de vera fide, oratio altera, xvi. The manner in which Cyril here expresses him-
self is curiously guarded and embarrassed, ffcaS /.lovovovxi, somehow almost J

The Patristic Christology. 6 J

merely man but a man, whether personality is to be reek-
one d'amongtlie nostra ascribed to Christ in their totality,
' — these are questions which either did not occur to his
mind, or on which he did not feel able to throw light. The
former supposition is probably the correct one; for the
writers of the patristic period did not conceive a person as
we do, as a self-conscious Ego, but simply as a centre of
unity for the characteristics which distinguish one individ-
ual from another.^ According to this view, Christ would
be " the result of the conjunction of natures, the sum total
of both, the collective centre of vital unity which is at once
God and man." ^

The Council of Chalcedon proved utterly impotent to
stay the progress of controversy; its only immediate effect
being to produce a schism in the Church, whereby the
Monophysite party became constituted into a sect. The
great debate went on as if no ecclesiastical decision had
been come to, prolonging its existence for upwards of three
hundred years, and passing successively through three
different stages, distinguished respectively as the Mono-
physite, the Monothelite, and the Adoptian controversies.
The Chalcedonian formula left a sufficient number of un-
settled questions to supply ample materials for further dis-
cussions. Are unity of the person and a duality of natures
mutually compatible } what belongs to the category of the
natures and what to the category of the person, and, in
particular, to which of the two categories is the ivill to be
reckoned } is personality essential to the completeness of
each nature, in particular to the completeness of the human
nature .-' These questions in turn became the successive
subjects of dispute in the long Christological warfare which
ensued; the first being the radical point at issue in the
Monophysite phase, the second in the Monothelite, the
third in the Adoptian; the great controversy thus return-
ing in its final stage, at the close of the eighth century,
pretty nearly to the point from which it started at the be-
ginning of the fourth, Adoptianism being, if not, as some
think, with some difference of form, virtually Nestorianism

• Domer, Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. p. 320.
' Ibid. div. ii. vol. i. p. 87.

68 The Humiliation of Christ.

rcdivivus, at least the assertion of a double aspect in Christ's
personality. Of the many contests which raged around
these questions in the course of the next three centuries, I
will not here attempt to give even the most cursory ac-
count. The subject is indeed by no means inviting. From
the Council of Chalcedon to the Council of Frankfort may
be called the dreary period of Christology, the sources of
information being comparatively scanty, the points at issue
minute or obscure, and even when both clear and impor-
tant, as in the Monothelite controversy, involving subtle
scholastic discussions distasteful to the religious spirit, and
presenting to view an anatomical figure in place of the
Christ of the Gospel history. The doctrine, I suppose, had
to pass through all the- phases referred to, — probably not
one of the battles, great or small, could have been avoided;
still one is thankful his lot is cast in better times than those
in which they were fought out. Who would care to spend
his life discussing such questions as those which occupied
the minds of men in the sixth century, and in reference
to which Monophysite was at war with Monophysite, as
well as with his orthodox opponents .'' Was Christ's body
corruptible or incorruptible — naturally liable to death, suf-
fering, need, and weakness, or liable only because and when
the Logos willed .'' was it created or uncreated ? nay, could
it be said after the union with the Logos to exist at all ?
Such were the questions on which men felt keenly in that
unhappy age, and in connection with which they be-
stowed on each other nicknames offensive in meaning, un-
musical in sound; the deniers of the corruptibility calling
their antagonists Phthartolatrae, worshippers of the cor-
ruptible; the asserters of corruptibility retorting on their
opponents with the countercharge of Aphthartodoketism ;'
the parties in the question whether the body of Christ after
union with the Logos was to be regarded as created or as
uncreated, calling each other in kindred spirit Aktistetes
and Ktistolators; while those who completed the reductio
ad absurdum of Monopiysitism, by denying all distinctive
reality to the humanity of Christ after the union, went by
the name of Niobites, taken from the surname of the founder,

' See for further particulars in reference to this controversy, Lect. vi.

The Patristic Christology. 69

Stephen, an Alexandrian Sophist. Two other disputes em-
braced within the Monophysitic controversy were of a
more dignified character; those, viz., relating to the par-
ticipation of the Logos in Christ's sufferings, and to the
knowledge possessed by Christ's human soul. But it is a
curious indication of the confused nature of the strife going
on in those years, to find parties in the latter of these two
disputes changing sides, — the Monophysites maintaining
the position which one would have expected the defenders
of the Chalcedonian formula to take up. The Agnoetes,
that is to say, those who asserted that the human soul of
Christ was like ours, even in respect of ignorance, were a
section of the Monophysite party; and their opponents em-
braced not merely the straiter sect of the Monophysites,
but the Orthodox, who, as represented, e.g., by Bede, taught
that Christ from His conception was full of wisdom, and
therefore did not really grow in knowledge as in stature.
Amid the smoke of battle men had got bewildered, and,
fighting at random, fired upon their own side.^

Passing, then, without any great effort of self-denial,
from these obscure wranglings, and leaping over, also with-
out much regret, the Monothelite controversies which fol-
lowed in what may called the era of anatomical Christology,
I shall close this lecture with brief notices of two rep-
resentative men with whom we shall hereafter find it
convenient to have some acquaintance: one of them show-
ing the state of Christology after the close of the contro-
versy concerning the two wills, and before the rise of the
Adoptian controversy; the other exhibiting the prevailing
Christology of the mediaeval period, when the process of
reaction which set in after the Council of Frankfort, in the
direction of a one-sided assertion of Christ's divinity, had
attained its complete development. I refer to John of
Damascus, who flsourished about the middle of the eighth
century, and Thomas Aquinas, one of the great lights of
the thirteenth.

' See on this curious phenomenon, Domer, Person of Christ, cliv. ii. vol. i. p.
142; and Baur, die Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, vol. ii. pp. 87-92. Dorner and
Baur agree in their view of the Agnostic controversy, and give the same repre-
Bentation as that in the text.

yo The Hiimiliation of Christ.

John of Damascus carried the distinctness of the natures
to its utmost limit, short of the recognition of two hypos-
tases in the one Christ. He advocated the doctrine of two
wills, on the ground that the faculty .of willing is an
essential attribute of rational natures.^ The controversy
concerning the two wills had arisen zvithin the Church, and
between the adherents to the Chalcedonian formula, because
it was not self-evident to which of the two categories, the
natures or the person, the will should be referred. Doubt
on this point was very excusable, inasmuch as a good
deal could be said on both sides. John recognises the
legitimacy of such perplexity by virtually treating the will
as a matter pertaining both to the natures and to the per-
son. " To will," he says, " in the abstract — the will faculty is
physical, but to will thus and thus is personal!"^ There
are two will faculties but only one wilier, the one Christ
who wills according to both natures using the will faculty
of each. ^ On the principle of conceding to each nature all
its natural properties, John ascribes to the human will
the faculty of self-determination (rJ avvEi.ov6iov')\ but this is
very much a matter of form, for he represents the human
soul of Christ as willing freely the things which the divine
will wished it to will.* His doctrine, therefore, while
dyothelitic in one respect, is monothelitic in another; the
human will being in effect reduced to the position of a
natural impulse of desire to do this, to shun that, to par-
take of food, to sleep, etc., and entering only as a momentum
into the one determining will of the one Christ.^

Recognising in the above fashion two wills, the Damas-

' De Ditabus Vohmiatibus, c. 22.

2 De Dtmbiis Vohiniatibits, c. 24: QeXt/tihov ^(Sov 6 avBpoDTCoi' to Si
BeXrjTov ov q>v6iK6v jxovov , aWa xai yvooixindv, xai vTtodrariHov.
'AX'/C ov Ttai avGpcjTto') c£)6avTcoZ QsXei, ovds ro auto' oJdrE ro rojS
Bs.\biv uaX-wZ rj Jtaxaii, T/ to ti Ot'Xeiv, to Se, t) Iheivo, ou (pvdiHoy
dXAd yvGO/nxov, nai vTtodTaTiHov.

3 Z>e Fide Orthodoxd, lib. iii. cap. xiv. : sTteiS}) TOivovv £ii jitsy 6 Xp'i6T6i
■nai /lia avrov 77 VTfodTadi?, sii nai 6 avroi 'e6txv 6 BeXgov OeiihoS? te
ycai diBpoDTCivooi.

* De Fide Ort/iodoxa, lib. iii. c. xviii.: i'/QeXe jhev avVE^ovdicoi Tiivov/it'i'T^
■f) Tov Kvpiov 4'^xVi «'l-'^' EXEiva avTEc,ov6iGoi 7/OeXe d ?/ OEia avzoi
6iX?jdii yOeXs OeXeiv avTi'/v.

* So Dorner, div. ii. vol. i. p. 2IO.

The Patristic Christology. 7 1

cene, carrying- out the theory embodied in the phrase " of
two and in two distinct natures," asserts a duality in respect
to everything pertaining to the nature of God and of man
in common. Christ has all the things which the Father
hath, except the property of being unbegotten; He has all
the things which the first Adam had, except sin alone.
Therefore He has two physical wills, two physical energies,
two physical faculties of self-determination (aJrf^ou'cJza), two
wisdoms and knowledges.^ John even goes the length of
conceding to Christ's \iwvi\-s.x\x\.Y personality, but not separate
independent personality: It was without hypostasis in itself,
never having had an independent subsistence; but it became
enhypostatized through union with the Logos. No nature,
he admits, can be without hypostasis, nature apart from
individuality being a mere abstraction; but then he holds
that the two natures united in Christ do not necessarily
possess separate hypostases; they may meet in one hypos-
tasis, so that they shall neither be without hypostasis nor
possess each a peculiar hypostasis, but have both one and
the same." In this way Christ becomes a human individual,
and the person of Christ is to be regarded as composite.'

Still, in spite of his efforts to make it formally complete,
the humanity of Christ in the system of the Damascene re-
mained a lifeless thing. The anatomical process to which
the human nature was subjected left it an inanimate carcase
with the form and features of a man, but without the inspir-
ing soul. Already what Dorner happily calls the tran-
substantiating process has begun, which was to evacuate
Christ's humanity of all its contents, and leave only the
outward shell with a God within. In several most im-
portant respects, Christ, as exhibited in John's system, — the
last important utterance of the Greek Church on the subject
of Christology, — is not our brother, like us in all points
save sin. At the very first stage of His incarnate history
there is an ominous difference between Him and us. His
body was not formed in the womb of the Virgin by gradual

' De Fide OrtJiodoxa, lib. iii, cap. xiii.

'^ De Fide Orthodoxd, lib. iii. c. ix.

' De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. iii.: zlZ /.liocv vTCodradzv duvOerov.

72 ihe Htimiliation of Christ.

minute additions, but was perfected at once.^ Then the
soul of the holy child knew no growth in wisdom. Jesus is
said to have increased in wisdom and stature; because He
did indeed grow in stature, and because He made the mani-
festation of the indwelling wisdom keep pace with that
growth:" just the old doctrine of Cyril, who at this distance
appears a saint, and is quoted without hesitation as an
orthodox Father. Doubtless the flesh of our Lord was per
se ignorant; but then, in virtue of the identity of the hy-
postasis and the indissoluble union. His soul was enriched
with the knowledge of future things;^ and to assert that it
really grew in wisdom and grace, as receiving increment
of these, is to deny that the union was formed al' initio — is
to deny the hypostatic union altogether. If the flesh was
truly united to Deity from the first moment of conception,
and possessed hypostatic identity therewith, how could it
fail to be perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace }*■
Of course temptation was not a very serious affair for such
a Christ. He was tempted from without, apart from any
internal suggestions, and He repelled and dissipated the
assaults of the enemy like smoke!" In like manner Christ
had no personal need for prayer; He prayed simply as sus-
taining our person and performing our part, asking what He
did not need by way of example to us; teaching us to ask
of God and to raise our souls to Him, and through His holy
mind preparing a way for our ascent to the throne of grace.*
While carrying the formal doctrine of the distinction be-
tween the natures to its utmost limits, John considered it

• De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. ii. : ov raXZ Hard /.itxpov TtpociQi/Hati
aTtapnZoiitevov tov dxvjuaroi' dXX' vtp ev TE/LeicoOerro?.

- De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxii. : r?] /iiEV ?}AiHia. avccoi^, diet Si riji
avh'jdEooi TTJi yXiHiai zrjv ewTcdpxovdav avrip dogjiav eii qiavEpoodiv
ayoov.

» De Fide Oj-thodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxi.: 8i(X di rrjv r?/? vTrodrddscD? ravro-
TTjta nai rr/v adiddTtadrov 'ivGodiv itateTtXovTijdev rj tov Kvpiov
ipvxTJ TTJv rcwK jneXXuvrajv yvdodiv.

■• De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxii.

° De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xx.: cwS Kaitvov disAvdev.

6 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxiv.: ro rjuirepov otxeiovjiiEVo? Ttpodoa-
Ttov, Hai rviti^v kv kavt^ v6 I'mevEpov, nai v7toypa/.i/.idi vulv ysvo-
usvoi, uai SiSadHoov i)ixd^ itcxpd &eov aivElv, xai npoi avrov dva-
TEivEdBai, uai Sid tov dyiov avrov rov odovtotcav ?'//elv rr/v npoi
&e6v dvdfiadiv.

The Patristic Christology. 73

his duty to do what he could towards the establishment
of a communion between the natures as asserted in the for-
mula of Chalcedon. For this purpose he lays stress on the
hypostatic union, the permeation of the human by the di-
vine/ and the mutual communication of names which takes
place between the natures.^ The last-mentioned means of
communion amounts to nothing more than the verbal com-
munication of attributes taught by the Reformed Christolo-
gy; but the second, the permeation {TCEpx.xwpr}6i<i)^ involves
something approaching at least to the real communication
of the Lutherans. To this permeation, as well as to the
hypostatic union, is due the perfection in knowledge ab
initio of the human soul of Christ already spoken of. Hence
also it comes that the flesh of Christ is life-giving, and that
the human will of Christ is omnipotent, though in itself
limited in power. ^ These are instances in which the divini-
ty communicates to the humanity its own glorious proper-
ties, anci by the communication in a manner deifies it.

As in the Cyrillian and the Lutheran Christologies, so in
the system of John, the communication of attributes is all
on one side. There is no kind of communication by which
the divine nature becomes partaker of the humiliation of
humanity, corresponding to that by which the human na-
ture becomes partaker of the glories of divinity. The di-
vinity communicates to the body its proper virtues, but it
remains non-participant in the sufferings of the flesh.* The
Logos is indeed spoken of as appropriating to itself the hu-
manities; but that is meant simply in the sense that the
flesh and all its properties are connected with it personally.'
For the divine nature in Christ, the words humiliation, ser-
vice, suffering, have no real sense. Christ, we are told, was

' 7r£/97;|^M7j?/(Jz?. * rpoTto? rijZ avridodsco?, lib. iii. c. iii.

3 De Fide Orthodoxd, lib. iii. c. xviii. Contrasting the divine and human wills
in Christ, John represents the former as without beginning, and omnipotent and
apathetic; the latter, as having a beginning in time, subject to physical and sinless
affections, and naturally not all-powerful, but having become truly and physically
the property of God the Logos; it also is thereby rendered almighty. &55 Se rov
&EOV Xoyov dAT^6(Si xai naroc (pvdiv ysvouEJ^Tj, Hal Ttavrol^vra^o's.

* De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xv.: T(2v uiv ovv ovHslcov avx^]H0i-T00v
rj Qeorr/i raJ dconari ^sraSldoodiv avTT] Se rcSv T'^i dapuSi TtaOcSv
diajiievei ajueroxoi.

6 De Fide Orthodoxd, lib. iii.c. iii.: oiHEiovrai 8e vd dvOpooTtiva 6 Xoyoi.

74 The Humiliation of Christ.

not a servant — to teach otherwise is to Nestorianize; all
that we may say is, that the flesh of Christ /^v se, and con-
ceived of as not united to the Word, was of servile nature.^
The relation of the Logos to the passion is illustrated by
the metaphor of a tree on which the sun shines being cut
down with an axe. The axe fells the tree, but it does no
harm to the sunbeams; and so in like manner the divinity
of the Logos, though united hypostatically to the flesh, re-
mains impassible while the flesh suffers." What a loose, in-
adequate idea of the Incarnation is suggested by such a
comparison ! The Logos in the humanity like the sun-
light among the branches of an oak ! One is thrown back
on the question whether, on such a conception of the Divine
Being as is implied in the figure, an incarnation be possi-
ble; and our doubts are deepened when we observe how
John speaks of the great mystery of godliness in the open-
ing chapter of the book which treats of the divine economy
of the Licarnation. " Bending the heavens, He descends;
that is, humbling without humiliation His majesty, which
cannot be humbled, He descends to the level of His ser-
vants, by a condescension inexpressible and inconceivable."*
The practical import of this self-cancelling sentence is: the
Scriptures teach that He who was in the form of God hum-
bled Himself, and therefore we must teach likewise; but
the thing taught is philosophically impossible.

Passing now from John of Damascus to Thomas Aquinas,
separated from the former by an interval of five centuries, we
find that the lapse of time has brought along with it a great
change indeed, but a change more in the method of treat-
ment than in the substance of the doctrine. Many thoughts
with which we have become familiar, through the writings

' De Fide Orthodox^, lib. iii. c. xxi.: Sov\r] edriv rj 6dp%, ei mj r/vooro
Tc3 0Ea5 Xoyoi- Siitocc, 8s hvooQelda xaQ' V7f odradiv, ncSi k'drai dovXr/^
£ii ydf) ftJK o Xpidvoi ov dvvarai douXoi kavvov eivai ual Kvptoi.

- De Fide Orthodoxa. lib. iii. c. xxvi.: El yap r/Xiov Sevdpo) hTtiXduTtov-
To^, Tf aiivri TEj-iyoi ro Ssvdpov, azfnjroi xal dnaOr}i Siajievei b
r/Xio'^, TToAAoJ fidXXov, h. r. X.

3 De Fide Orthodoxa^ lib. iii. c. i.: KXivaZ ovpavovi Marepx^rai- rov-
Tedri TO dtaTCEiV'COTOv ocvrov vipoS ocTaTfEivoaTCoZ raTtfivoodai, dvy-
Tiaraficxivei zoli eavrov dovXoii dvyHardftcxdiy aqypadruv te uai
aHazdXj/TCTov.

The Patristic Christology. yS

of John, reappear in the pages of Thomas, the Eastern monk
being-, in fact, the chief Christological authority of the great
Western scholastic. Three ideas, however, present them-
selves to view in the Summa, which, if not entirely new in
the history of the dogma, are developed in that work with
a fulness which justifies us in connecting them with the name
of its author. These ideas are: the conception of the Incar- /,
nation as an incarnation, not of the divine nature, but of a
d'wme pcrsott; the conception of the human nature of Christ ^
as a recipient o{ grace; and the conception of Christ in His
humanity as the Head oi t\\Q Church. With respect to the
first of these topics, the view of the Church had not before
Thomas' time assumed a fixed form, as we learn from the
sentences of Peter the Lombard, in which the vacillating state
of opinion is faithfully reflected. Peter proposes for dis-
cussion the question, Whether a person or a nature assumed
humanity, and whether the nature of God was incarnated.'*
and he answers the question by virtually allowing validity
to both alternatives. " Desiring," he says, " to remove from
the sacred pages every trace of falsehood and contradiction,
we agree with orthodox Fathers and catholic doctors in
saying both that the person of the Son assumed human
nature, and that the divine nature was united to human na-
ture in the Son, and united and assumed it to itself; on which
account the divine nature is truly said to be incarnate." *
Thomas, on the other hand, while allowing that the latter
mode of putting the matter was not wholly inadmissible,
pronounced in favor of the former alternative as the only ap-
propriate way of stating the fact.^ But what did he mean by
taking up this position .-' The view that the union exhibited
in the Word Incarnate was made not in naturd, but in persona,
might be intended simply to serve the purpose of adjusting
thedoctrine of the Incarnation to the doctrine of the Trinity ;
the first and third persons of the Trinity being exempted
from participating in the Incarnation, by the exclusion of

' Sententiarum, lib. iii. distinct, v.: Dicentes, et personam filii assumpsisse
naturam humanam et natuiam divinam humanae naturae in filio unitam, eamque
sibi unisse vel assumpsisse, unde et vere incarnata dicitur.

' Summa, pars iii. qu. ii. artt. i. ii. The questions are put thus: Utrum unio
verbi incarnati sit facta in natur^. Utrum unio verbi incarnati sit facto in person!.

76 The Humiliation of Christ.

the common divine nature from all direct participation
therein. Or the thesis might be designed to guard against
monophysite confusion, and to affirm with the greatest
possible emphasis the distinctness of the two natures of
Christ within the personal unity. Or, finally, it is conceiv-
able that the position in question might be laid down by
one who meant to teach that the distinctive attributes of
the divine nature, omniscience, omnipotence, etc., while
still possessed by the divine person who became man, did
not enter into the incarnate state, and reveal themselves in
the incarnate life of the God-man. Now there can be no
doubt that Thomas, in formulating his doctrineof the Incar-
nation, had in view the former two of these three purposes;^
but there does not appear to be any good ground for ascrib-
ing to him the idea of a double life of the Logos implied in
the third hypothetical explanation of his meaning; though,
of course, the question may be raised whether that idea be
not a logical consequence of his theory. Dorner seems in-
clined to think otherwise. He represents the significance
of the Incarnation, in Thomas' view, as being limited to the
fact that the divine person of the Son, as distinct from His
divine nature, was inserted into the human nature; the
divine personality standing, of course, in intimate connec-
tion with its own nature, but not allowing any part of it to
pass over into the human nature. This limitation, which
he characterizes as remarkable, he represents as being made
not merely for Trinitarian reasons, but also in order to
render the problem of Incarnation an easier one, which in
Dorner's judgment is equivalent to evading the problem
in one essential particular, or even to letting it entirely
fall.^ Baur, on the other hand, recognises in Thomas' way
of stating the Incarnation, simply the development of the

' Under quaestio iii. art. ii. he discusses the question, "Utrum divinae naturae
conveniat assumere," stating as an objection that if it belonged to the nature to
assume, it would follow that it belonged to the three persons, and thus the Father
would have assumed human nature as well as the Son. This objection he meets
by saying that the divine nature is ihe principiiim assumptionis, but not itself the
terminus assiimptionis. Esse terminum assumptionis non convenit naturae di^'inae
secundum seipsum, sed ratione personae in quaconsideratur. Et ideo primoquidem
et propriissime persona dicitur assumere.

" Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 331, 332.

The Patristic Christology. 77

ecclesiastical doctrine, that in Christ two natures, distinct
in themselves, and remaining distinct after the union, were
united in one person.' According to this view, the more
correct one, as it appears to me, the new element in Aquinas'
formula was not the promulgation of a new theory, but
simply a greater measure of strictness in adapting the form
of expression to the established theory. The sense in
which Aquinas meant his thesis to be understood, may be
gathered from the use to which he puts it in solving prob-
lems respecting the knowledge and the power possessed
by Christ's human soul. Thus the question, Had Christ
any knowledge besides the divine } is decided in the affirm-
ative, because the union affected only the personal being,
and knowledge belongs to the person only in virtue of its
being an attribute of one or other of the natures. Duality
of knowledge therefore follows from the duality of natures,
unless we mutilate the human nature, and deprive it of an
attribute which it possesses in all other men." The ques-
tion whether Christ's soul possessed the particular species
of knowledge called the knowledge of the blessed, is an-
swered affirmatively by the application of the same prin-
ciple; the objection, that a knowledge which the saints
have by participation in the divine light cannot be ascribed
to a being who, as divine, had not His light by participa-
tion, but as an essential attribute of His indwelling divinity,
being disposed of by the remark that divinity was united to
the humanity of Christ as to the person, not as to the
essence or nature, and that with the unity of the person the
distinction of natures remains. The consequence is, that
the soul of Christ, which is a part of the human nature, is,
by a certain light borrowed from the divine nature, per-
fected unto the blessed knowledge whether God is seen as
He is.' Once more the question, whether the soul of Christ

' Die Christliche Lehre vott dcr Dreieinigkeit tuid Menschwerdting Gottcs,
Zweite Theil, p. 795.

* Pars terli^, quaest. ix. art. i.: Ex parte ipsius unionis non potest poni in Christo
aliqua scientia. Nam unio ilia ad esse personale, scientia autem non convenit
personae nisi ratione alicujus naturae.

3 Quaest. ix. art. ii. The question is: Utrum Christus habuerit scientiam quam
habent beati vel comprehensores. In favour of the negative, Thomas conceives
the following argument as being advanced: Scientia beatorum est per participati-

78 The Humiliatiojt of Christ.

had absolute omnipotence, is decided in the negative; be-
cause in the mystery of the Incarnation the union is so made
in the person that the distinction of natures remains, each
nature retaining- that which is proper to itself/ It is easy
to see from these examples that Thomas' way of stating
the doctrine of the Incarnation really amounted to little
more than the formula, that in Christ two distinct natures
were united in one person. In the next lecture we shall
find the same mode of stating the doctrine reappearing in
the Reformed Christology in the same interest, i.e. as a
means of emphasizing and guarding the distinctness of the
united natures.

Passing to the second of the three thoughts character-
istic of the Christological system set forth in the Suvniia,
the conception of Christ as the recipient of grace, Thomas
divided the grace conferred into two parts, — the grace of
union, that is, the honour bestowed upon the human nature
of the Incarnate Son of God in being united to divinity,
and habitual grace. He deemed it necessary to ascribe to
Christ the latter sort of grace for three reasons. First,
because His soul was united to the Logos, it being evident
that the nearer anything of a receptive nature is to a source
of influence, the more it must participate of its influence.
Second, on account of the nobility of that soul whose activ-
ities behoved to come as near as possible to God in knowl-
edge and love, for which end the human nature needed to
be elevated by grace. Third, on account of Christ's re-
lation as man to the human race, that viz. of Mediator,
which required Him to have grace in Himself that it might
overflow from Him to others.^ But a previous question

onem divini luminis secundum illud, Ps. xxxvi. lO. In lum'ute tuo videbimus lumen.
Sed Christus non habuit lumen divinum lanquam parlicipatum, sed ipsam divini-
tatem in se habuit substantialiter manentem. To which he replies: Divinitas unita
est humanilati Christi secundum personam non secundum essenliam vel naluram;
sed cum unitate personae remanet distinctio naturarum. Et ideo anima Christi,
quae est pars humanae naturae, per aliquod lumen participatum a natura divina
perfecta est ad scientiam beatam qua Deus per essentiam videtur.

' Quaest. xiii. art. i. : In mysterio incarnationis ita facta est unio in person^,
quod tamen remansit distinctio naturarum utrique scilicet natura retinente id quod
sibi est proprium . . . Cum igitur anima Christi sit pars humanae naturae, im-
possibile est quod omnipotentiam habeat.

8 Pars iii. quaest. vii. (De Gratia Christi, prout est quidam singulans homo) art. i.

The Patristic Christology. 79

naturally arises, viz., Was not the communication of hab-
itual grace rendered superfluous by the fact of union ? and
a little consideration suffices to satisfy us that the idea of
such a communication has for its presupposition a very
emphatic assertion of the distinctness of the natures within
the union. Accordingly, we find that Thomas disposes of
this very objection by falling back on the distinction.
Having stated as an argument against ascribing to Christ
habitual grace, that He is God, not participatively, but
according to truth, he disposes of it by saying that Christ
is true God as to His person and His divine nature; but
inasmuch as with the unity of the person the distinction
of natures remains, the soul of Christ is not by its essence
divine, and therefore it can become divine only as believers
do, viz. by participation, which is according to grace.* The
communication oi grace, that is to say, is to be regarded in
the light of a corollary from that view of Christ's person
which emphasizes the distinctness of the natures; just as
the communication oi pj^operties is a corollary from that
view of Christ's person which allows the distinction to be
eclipsed by the unity. This remark will prepare us to un-
derstand how it came to pass that the Reformed Christol-
ogists espoused the former of these ideas, as taught by
Thomas; while the Lutheran Christologists, on the other
hand, patronized the latter, and the kindred notion of
physical pervasion as taught by John of Damascus.

Aquinas represented Christ as being a recipient of grace
in a double capacity; as a singular man, and as the Head
of the Church; the grace being in both cases the same as to
essence, differing solely as to the ground and reason of
communication.^ This conception of Christ as the head of
the Church is the third prominent idea in the Christology

' Pars iii. quaest. vii. art. i. The objection is: Gratia est quaedam participatio
divinitatis in creatura rationali secundum illud, 2 Petri i. 3. Per quern maxima
et pretiosa promissa nobis donavit ut divinae simus consortes naturae. And the
reply: Christus est verus Deus sec. personam et naturam divinam. Sed quia cum
unitate personae remanet distinctio naturarum anima Christi non est per suam es-
sentiam divina. Unde oportet quod fiat divina per participationem quae est sec.
gratiam.

* Quaestio viii. (De Gratia Christi, prout est caput Ecclesiae) art. v.: Eadem
est sec. essentiam gratia personalis qua anima Christi est justificata, et gratia ejus^
sec. quam est caput ecclesiae justificans alios; differt tamen sec. rationem.

8o The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

of the great schoolman, well characterized by Baur as one
of those in which he rises above the dry formalism of the
scholastic theology.^ The Christological value of this idea,
as of the one preceding, lies in the implied assertion of the
likeness of Christ in all essential respects to His brethren.
While as the Head, exalted above all, He is still the rep-
resentative of a mystical body, to whom He stands in the
relation of Primus inter pares. This is not indeed the
aspect of the truth emphasized by Aquinas; for what he
insists on is rather the superiority than the similitude.
Christ is head, according to the analogy of the human
head, in respect of order, perfection, and virtue. As the
head of a human body is the first part of man beginning
from above, so Christ as to the grace of nearness to God is
first and highest; as to the head of the human body belongs
the perfection of containing within itself all the senses
external and internal, while in the other members is the
sense of touch alone, so Christ is perfect as possessing the
plenitude of all graces; and as the powers, motion, and
government of all the members of the body are centred
in the head, so Christ has the power to pour grace into
all the members of the Church; and on all these accounts
He is properly called the Head of the Church." Still, it
must be observed, all this superiority is ascribed to Christ
as man. To an objection based on a sentence from Au-
gustine which seems to teach a contrary opinion, Thomas
replies, that while to give grace or the Holy Spirit belongs
to Christ as God authoritatively, it also belongs to Him as
man instrumentally, inasmuch as His humanity was the
instrument of His divinity.* Another objection taken to
the applicability of the figure, from the fact that the head
is a particular member receiving influence from the heart,
while Christ is the universal principle of the whole Church,
he disposes of thus: The head has a manifest eminence
compared with the other members; but the heart has a
certain secret influence. Therefore the Holy Spirit, who
invisibly vivifies and unites the Church, is compared to the
heart; but Christ is compared to the head, as to His visible

' Dreieinigkeit, ii. p. 802.

* Quaestio viii. art. i. (Utrum Christum sit caput Ecclesiae). ' Quaestio viii. art. i.

77^6' Patristic Christology. 8i

nature, as a man is set over other men.^ As a man over
other men, therefore, is Christ Head of the Church; so that
while His Headship implies supremacy, it no less clearly
implies fraternity.

From the foregoing exposition it will have appeared that
the three ideas characteristic of the Christological system
set forth in the 5z^;«m« all point in one direction, that, namely,
of the emphatic assertion of the homousia taught in our
seventh axiom: Christ in all possible respects, both in His
human nature and in His human experience, like unto His
brethren. But on looking into other parts of that system,
we find that what is given with one hand is taken back
again by the other. The Christ of Aquinas is after all not
our brother, not a man, but only a ghastly siniiilacnun. In
many most important respects He is not like the members
of His mystical body. Not to speak of His material part,
which, according to the author of the Smmna, was perfectly
formed from the first moment of conception, and born
without pain; "' the soul of Christ differed from ours to an
extent which makes us feel that between Him and us there
is little in common. Recipient of grace in all its plenitude,
the soul of Jesus was without the two cardinal graces of
faith and hope; because, forsooth, the possession of these,
while in one respect a merit, is in another a defect.* The
g"ifts of knowledge, on the other hand, imparted to Christ
as a man, made the gulf between Him and us, already too
wide, wider still. His soul possessed at once the knowl-
edge of the blessed, the knowledge which comes through
innate ideas, and the knowledge which comes through the
senses; the first consisting in the perfect vision of God and

' Quaestio viii. art. i. : Capiti autem comparatur ipse Christus sec. visibilem nat-
uram, sec. quam homo hominibus praefertur.

2 Quaeslio xxxiii. (De modo et ordineconceptionis Christi) art. i. (Utrum corpus
Christi fuerit formatum in primo instanti conceptionis ?) The answer is: In primo
instanti quo materia adunata pervenit ad locumlgenerationis fuit perfecte formatum
corpus Christi, et assumptum. The painless birth is taught under quaestio xxxv.
(De nativitate Christi) art. vi. : Christus est egressus ex clause utero matris, et
propter hoc in illo partu nullus fuit dolor sicut nee aliqua corruptio; sed fuit ibi
maxima jucunditas. To the arguments in favour of the contrary position, that
it behoved Christ's life to begin as it ended, with pain, and that the pain of birth
was a part of the curse, Aquinas replies that the pain was the mother's, not the
child's, and that Christ took on Ilim death voluntarily, not as under necessary sub-
jection to the curse. 3 Quaestio vii. (De gratia Christi) art. lii. and iv.

82 The Humiliation of Christ.

of all things in the mirror of the Logos, infinite in the sense
of embracing all reality though not all possibility, and com-
plete from the moment of conception, admitting of no
growth, and rendering the knowledge gradually acquired
through the senses, one would say, superfluous, as the moon
.is superfluous in presence of the sun, and causing the very
faculty for acquiring experimental knowledge to degenerate
into a mere rudimentary organ dwarfed by disuse.^ This
picture of a humanity which is inhuman, or at all events
unearthly, receives the finishing touch in the doctrine that
Christ, even in the days of His humiliation, was a compreJien-
sorsLS well as 2.viatoj-" — one, that is, who had already reached
the goal, as well as one hastening on toward it, and as such
could not increase in grace or in knowledge, being perfect
from the first; nor in felicity, save by deliverance from the
passibility to which His body and the lower part of His soul
were subject previous to the resurrection ; and could not know
at all by experience what it is to walk by faith, and to be sup-
ported under trial by hope. How can such a Christ as this
succour us when are tempted .'' How can one so little ac-
quainted with suffering be a perfect Captain of salvation ?
The author of the S^unnia indeed pleads on behalf of his the-
ory, that the goal to which men are to be conducted being the
beatific vision, and the medium through which they are con-
ducted being the humanity of Christ, it was meet that the
Captain should possess what the army led are destined to at-
tain, seeing that the cause should always be more powerful
than the object on which it exerts its force. ^ But the argu-
ment overlooks the fact that Christ's present power is de-
rived in great measure from His earthly weakness, and that
whilst it did certainly behove Him to enter into glory in
order to become the Author of salvation, it not less cer-
tainly behoved Him to be perfected by an experience as
like as possible to our present condition. It was reserved
for another age and for other theological teachers to give
the due prominence to this great truth.

' Quaestio ix. (De scientia Christi in communi) art. i.-iv., quaestion. x.-xii.

"^ Quaestio xv. (De defectibus animae a Christo assumptis) art. x. The term
lOtnprehensor is derived from the two texts, I Cor. ix. 24, sic currite ut compre-
hendatis, and Phil. iii. 12, sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam.

3 Pars tertia, quaestio ix. art. ii. : Semper causam oportet esse potiorem causato.

LECTURE III.

THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHRISTOLOGIES.

In the sixteenth century, memorable on so many other
accounts in the annals of the Church, Christology passed
into a new phase. Only a few years after the commence-
ment of the Reformation, there arose a dispute on the sub-
ject of Christ's person, which continued without intermis-
sion for a century, producing in its course a separation of
the German Protestants into two rival communions, distin-^
guished by the names Lutheran and Reformed, and even giv-
ing rise to bitter internal contentions between the members
of that section of the German Church which claimed Luther
for its founder and father. The long, obstinate, and in its
results unhappy controversy, originated in what to us may
appear a very small matter — a difference of opinion between
Luther and Zuingli as to the nature of Christ's presence in
the sacrament of the Supper. Zuingli maintained that the
Redeemer was present spiritually only, and solely for those
who believe, — the bread and wine being simply emblems of
His broken body and shed blood, aids to faith, and stimu-
lants to grateful remembrance. Luther vehemently as-
serted that the body of the Saviour was present in the Sup-
per, in, with, and under the bread, and was eaten both by
believers and by unbelievers; by the former to their benefit,
by the latter to their hurt. It is easy to see what questions
must arise out of such a diversity of view. If Christ's body
be present in the Supper, then it must be uhiqiiitous; but is
this attribute compatible with the nature of body, with the
ascension of the risen Lord into heaven, with His session
at the right hand of God, with the promise of His second

84 The Humiliation of Christ.

coming ? and how did the body of Christ come by this mar-
vellous attribute ? was it an acquisition made subsequently
to the exaltation, a characteristic feature in the state of
heavenly glory conferred on Christ as the reward of His vol-
untary humiliation on earth ? or did the humanity of the
Incarnate One possess the quality of omnipresence before
the ascension or the resurrection, nay, even from the first,
from the moment of conception, the necessary result, per-
haps, of the union of the divine and human natures in one
person, involving the communication to the inferior nature
not merely of ubiquity, but of all the august attributes of
the superior nature ? Supposing this last position to be
taken up, then the further question arises: How is such a
humanity, invested with all that belongs to divine majesty,
to be reconciled with the facts of Christ's earthly history,
with His birth and growth in wisdom; with His localization
in different places at different times; with His weakness,
temptations, and death ? Such, in fact, were the questions
discussed with more or less clearness and fulness by the
combatants in all the stages of the great controversy; with
this difference, that in the first stage, that in which Luther
himself and his opponents Zuingli, CEcolampadius, and
Carlstadt were the disputants, the contention was mainly
confined to the doctrine of the Supper itself, and the single
attribute of ubiquity; while in the second stage, from Brentz
to the Formula of Concord, the debate widened into a dis-
cussion of the person of Christ, and the consequences of the
union of the two natures in that person, with a view to a
firm Christological basis for the doctrine of the Supper; and
in the third and last stage, that of the Giessen-Tiibingen
controversy (internal to the Lutheran Church), the leading
subject was the earthly humiliation of Christ, the aim being
to adjust Lutheran Christological theories to historical
facts. The final result of the whole controversy on the
Lutheran side was the formation of a doctrine concerning
the person of Christ so artificial, unnatural, and incredible,
that any difficulty one may at first experience in under-
standing the Lutheran position, arises not from want of
clearness in the writers, but from the slowness of a mind
not familiar with the system to take in the idea that men

Lutheran and Reformed CJiristologies. 85

coald seriously believe and deliberately teach what their
words seem plainly enough to say. The Christology of the
Lutheran Church to an outsider wears the aspect of a vast
pyramid resting in a state of most unstable equilibrium on
its apex, Christ's bodily presence in the Supper; which
again rests upon a water-worn pebble, — the word of insti-
tution, " This is my body," easily susceptible of another
simple and edifying meaning, — the pyramid being upheld
solely by the strong arms of theological giants, and tum-
bling into irretrievable ruin so soon as the race of the
Titans died out.^

In making these general observations, I regard the
Lutheran Christology as one great whole, distinguished by
certain broadly marked characteristics from the rival Chris-
tology of the Reformed Confession. On closer inspection,
however, we find that the former of the two Christologies
resolves itself into two distinct types, which made their
appearance at a very early period, and reproduced them-
selves throughout the whole course of the century during
which the dogma was a subject of active controversy. The
two types may be designated, from the names of their first
expositors, as the Brentian and the Cheninitzian; the former
being the more extreme, bold, and logical form of the
theory; the latter, the more moderate, timid, and rational.
Both started from the principle that the personal union of
the two natures necessarily involved the communication to
the human nature of divine attributes; but they differed in
their use of the common premiss. Brentz and his followers
reasoned out the principle to its last results, regardless of
consequences. The Chemnitzian school, on the other hand,
having some fear of facts before their eyes, applied the
common assumption in a half-hearted manner, the result
being a system less consistent but also less absurd; illog-
ical, but just on that account nearer the truth. We shall
form to ourselves the clearest idea of the Lutheran Chris-
tology as a whole, and put ourselves in a position for un-
derstanding the doctrine of the Formula of Concord, by
making ourselves acquainted with the distinctive peculiar-

> On the connection between the Lutheran Christology and the Sacramentarian
controversy, see Appendix, Note A.

86 The Htimiliation of Christ.

ities of these two schools; and therefore I propose here to
^WQ. a brief account of the views of their founders — John
Brentz, the friend of Luther and reformer of Wiirtemberg,
and Martin Chemnitz of Brunswick, a disciple of Melanch-
thon, best known by his work on the Council of Trent.

The Christological views of Brentz are contained in a
series of treatises collected together in the eighth volume
of his works, published at Tubingen in 1590. His funda-
mental position in reference to the person of Christ is this:
Although the natures or substances are altogether diverse,
and have each their own peculiar idioms or properties,
nevertheless these same substances are conjoined in such a
union that they become one inseparable hypostasis, siip-
positinn or person, and their respective properties are
mutually communicated so familiarly, that whatever is a
property of either nature is appropriated by the other to
itself.' The two natures, that is to say, are not merely
united in one person, the Ego tying together two alto-
gether dissimilar substances still continuing dissimilar;
they are united into one person, their union constituting
the person, and involving ipso facto a communication of
their respective properties. The Reformed idea, as con-
sisting in a mere sustentation of the humanity by the
Logos, Brentz repudiated as not a personal union at all,
but merely a common union such as God may form with
any man. The difference between Christ and Peter, he
held, arose not from the sustentation or inhabitation of
the man Jesus by the Son of God, but from the communi-
cation to Him of the divine properties of the latter. The
Son of God, though He fills Peter with His essence, as He
fills the man Christ, does not communicate to Peter all
His properties, but only some. He vivifies Peter, keeps
him in life, gives him the power of casting out devils, yea,
of raising the dead; but He does not make him omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent. The Son of man, assumed from
the Virgin, on the contrary. He adorns not with some only,
but with all His gifts, and communicates to Him all His
properties. The qualification " as far as He is capable "
cannot be allowed; Christ was made capable of all divine

' Dc Personali nnione diiarnm nattirarum in Christ o. Opera, vol. viii. p. 84 1.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. %'j

properties, without any exception; if He had not such
capacity, there would be no difference between Him and
other men, nor could the Word become incarnate.^

At first Brentz showed a disposition, following- the ex-
ample of Luther, to apply his fundamental thesis impar-
tially to both sides of the composite person, and to make
the divine nature appropriate human properties, as well as
the human nature divine properties." And there was no
reason a priori why this should not be done, for it is surely
just as possible for the Infinite to become partaker of the
finite and its properties, as for the finite to become partaker
of the Infinite. But Brentz apparently soon found out that
to apply his principle both ways would be either to reduce
the communication of properties, on which so much stress
was laid, to the alloiosis of Zuingli, which drove Luther
mad with rage, or, in case the communication was held to
be real, to make either nature swallow up the other in turn;
therefore in his later works he quietly ignored one side and
worked out his theory solely on the other side, that, viz.,
of the appropriation by the human nature of the properties
characteristic of the divine nature.

In the working out of his theory Brentz exhibits at once
great boldness and no small amount of dialectical skill;
shrinking from no legitimate inference, and at the same
time doing his utmost to answer or obviate objections,
though sometimes with very indifferent success. He is
careful to explain that in the person of Christ neither
nature is changed into the other, but both remain inviolate

» De Majestate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ad Dextram Dei Patris, et De
Vera Praescntia corporis et sanguinis ejus in Coena, pp. 898-g. This work was
a reply to Peter Martyr and Henry Bullino;er, Cingiiani dogmatis de Coena Do-
minica propiignatoribns, and it is sadly disfigured by the asperities too common in
theological controversy.

2 De Personali tmione, p. 839: Nos autem inlelligimus in hac materia per idio-
mata, non tantum vocabularum, sed etiam rerum proprietates: ut cum per com-
municationem idiomatum de Christo dicimus, Deum esse passum et morluum, non
sit sentenlia, quod Deus verbum dicatur tantum sermone vocabuli pati et mori,
res autem ipsa nihil prorsus ad Deum pertineat, sed quod Deus, etsi natura sua nee
patitur, nee moritur, tamen passionem et mortem Christi ita sibi communem faciat,
ut propter hypos.taticam unionem passioni, et morti personal iter adsit, et non ahter,
ut sic dicam, afiiciatur quam si ipse pateretur et morerctur.

88 The Hu7niliation of Christ.

and in possession of their essential properties.^ There is
no exaequation of the humanity to the divinity. The for-
mer is indeed declared to be omnipotent, omnipresent,
etc., but it is not declared to be omnipotence itself. Of
God alone is this affirmed; the humanity possesses only a
communicated divinity, and is made equal to God not in
being {ov6i(x), but in authority {j^ov^ia)? But if each na-
ture retains its essential properties, the question at once
arises, in reference to the humanity, what are its essential
properties } Is to be in a particular place, e.g., one of them ">.
and if so, how is the retention of that property to be re-
conciled with omnipresence } At first Brent/ seems to
have been doubtful what position to take up on this point;
for, in a passage near the commencement of his earliest
treatise, that on the personal union, he remarks: "If you
say that to be in place is so proper to body that it cannot
be separated from it, let us suppose meantime that this is
in its own way true, 3^et it cannot be denied that what is
impossible to nature is not only possible but easy to divine
power.'"' It was not absolutely necessary that he should
call in question the position of his opponents in reference
to the nature of body, for it was open to him to follow the
course adopted by Luther, and to maintain the possibility
of body existing in two different ways at the same time;
locally, here or there in space; and illocally, everywhere.
This course, in point of fact, he did follow, as we shall see;

' De Personali unione, p, 837.

2 De Incarnatione C/irisii, p. looi: Non igitur exaequamus humanitatem
Christi divinitati ovdla sed tantum e^ovdia

3 jDe Personali tmione, p. 837. It must be stated, Tiowever, that in the imme-
diately preceding sentence Brentz says: " In loco esse non sit corporis substantia,
sed tantum proprietas substantiae accidentaria." In the paragraph preceding
that in which these words occur, he quotes the sentence of Augustine: " Tolle
spatia locorum corporibus, nusquam erunt, et quia nusquam erunt, non erunt,"
and remarks that he is aware that the things which are said concerning the ma-
jesty of Christ seem very absurd to human reason, and plainly impossible; but the
hypostatic union of most diverse natures is taught in Scripture, and therefore,
though the absurdity of absurdities, must be believed; and this greatest absurdity
being once accepted, many other things which appear absurd to human intellect
follow of course. This defiant attitude towards reason and philosophy pervades
Brentz' writings. In one place, however, he claims philosophy as on his side,
on the question whether to be in loco be essential to body. See De Div. Majes-
tate, p. 934.

LtUheran and Reformed Christologies. 89

but he did not rely solely on that line of argument, but,
moreover, boldly took up the position from which, as it
appears, he at first shrunk, that to be in loco is after all
not an essential attribute, but only an accident of body.
This view underlies all his representations of the invisible
- world. Brentz ridicules the Zuinglian conception of heaven
as a certain place not on this earth, but distant and far !
removed from it, distinct also from the visible lower i
heavens, not everywhere, but situated above the clouds, \
and above this corruptible world, yea, above all heavens,
in excclsis, the house of the Father, the abode and seat of
Christ and His elect, an abode happy, divine, eternal, im-
mense, splendid, spiritual, corporeal, having spaces, and
these most spacious, in which they walk, sit, stand, and,
" for aught I know, recline, for this is not expressly stated." *
Heaven is, in his view, simply a state separated from hell, 1/
not by space, but by disposition and condition; heaven
being where God is known in the majesty of His grace, \
and hell where He is known in the majesty of His severity.*
Going to heaven means going to the Father, who is the 1
Locus of His people, their all in all, the all-including lo-
cality; their heaven, earth, place, food, drink, as well as
their justice, wisdom, virtue, gladness, joy, and beatitude.*
The mansions spoken of by Christ to His disciples* are
purely spiritual.^ It is not, indeed, absolutely to be denied
that there is a certain place of beatitude in which Christ
dwells with His saints, but the question is whether the place
be such a place as Zuinglians contend for, — superficies cor-
poris continentis — Locus circumscriptus, — in other words
(ours, not Brentz'), whether it be, properly speaking, a
place at all." For, in truth, both space and time, as un-

I De Divina Majestate Christi, p. 947: . . . Locus certus ... in quibus ]o-
caliter itur, sedetur, statur, et ambulatur; atque baud scio, num etiam ibi jaceatur,
hoc enim non invenio additum. 2 Oe Ascensu Christi in Coelum, pp. 1040-47.

' Ibid. p. 1067: Cum igitur Deus erit in nobis Omnia, eerie erit nostrum coelum,
nostra terra, noster locus, etc. Vid. also De Div. Maj. p. 959.

* John xiv. 2; on which Bullinger wrote a treatise, the aim of which was to
show thai heaven was a definite locality, the abode of Christ and His people.

5 De Ascensu Christi in Coelum, p. 1046.

' De Sessione Christi ad dextrani Dei, p. 1076. Brentz shows manifest signs
of distress here: De hoc controvertitur; num beatitudinis locus sit talis, Talis

90 The Humiliation of CJwist.

derstood in this world, are to be destroyed in heaven, burnt
up in the great conflagration which shall usher in the new
heavens and the new earth, wherein shall be not space and
time, but righteousness.* The right hand of God means
the omnipotence and majesty of God. The session of
Christ at the right hand of God signifies His being crowned
with glory and honour, having all things subject to Him,
possessing all power in heaven and on earth.* It has no
relation to place; on the contrary, space is one of the things
put under Christ's feet; for place has a name and body has
a name, and it is written that He is to be placed above
everything that has a name in this world. ^ Christ's glorified
body has no form, if by form be meant external figure or
appearance; it has only the power of assuming such a form
at will by way of economy, as when Christ appeared to
Stephen and Paul, and as He shall appear at His second
coming. The body of the exalted Lord is not in heaven
with wound-prints in the hands [cicatricibiis in inanibtis),
it retains only the essence of body (whatever that maybe);
its form is incomprehensible, inconceivable, intolerable to
mortal men.* And the same thing holds true of the bodies
of the saints. They shall have no more to do with space
and time than the angels to whom, the Lord taught, the
glorified shall be equal. They shall still be true bodies as
to essence; but for the rest they shall be altogether spirit-
ual, without visible figure. Such an account of the spiritual
'^ody excites curiosity to know what the essence of body
as distinct from spirit may be; and one naturally inquires
what becomes of the resurrection on these terms. Our
author assures us that it still remains, — not without indig-
nation at those who ventured to insinuate that his theory
left no place for it; but his assurance does not dispel our
doubts.** Once more, in view of this sublimating process,
intended to make room for the doctrine of ubiquity, one
not unnaturally inquires, Are all spiritual bodies then

inquam, qualem, etc. The talis in large capitals betrays the irritation of a dispu-
lant at his wits' end.

' De Asccnsii Christi in Caelum, p. 1048.

2 De Divina Majestate, p. 920, and in many other places.

^ Ibid. pp. 913, 914. ■* Ibid. pp. 930, 1047, 1081, 1091.

' De Sessiane, r>. 1092.

Ltitheran and Reformed Christologies. 91

ubiquitous, those of the saints as well as that of Christ ?
Brentz himself asks the question; but his reply is far from
satisfactory: " Let us," he says, " not be solicitous at pres-
ent, and in this life, concerning the state of the saints in
the world to come; but give Christ His own peculiar ma-
jesty, more excellent than all that can be named, and join
His saints to Him."'

The foregoing views of the invisible world, and of the con-
ditions of existence there, might be available, as they were
actually used by Brentz, to meet objections to the doctrine
of ubiquity drawn from the hypothesis of a localized heaven
to which the glorified body of Christ is confined;^ but they
are manifestly inadequate to the task of reconciling the
attribute of ubiquity, supposed to be communicated to
Christ's humanity by the personal union, with the conditions
of existence on earth. Whatever be the nature of our Lord's
glorified body, it is certain at all events that His earthly
body had a local existence. How then did Brentz seek to
secure, as his theory required, even for the earthly body the
attribute of ubiquity t As Luther had done before him,'

' De Divina Majestate Christi, p. 959.

■•2 Thomasius {Person und Werk, ii. 358) animadverts on a statement made by
Heppe ( Geschichle des Deutschen Protestantismus), that Brentz did not derive the
doctrine of ubiquity from the union of the natures, but from the full entrance of
the exalted man Christ into the glory of God, and from the session of the Son of
God at the right hand of the Father, as one which the slightest acquaintance with
Brentz' writmgs shows to be the direct contrary of the actual fact. Heppe is cer-
tainly grossly in error; but his error lies not in what he affirms, but in what he
denies. The truth is, Brentz based his doctrines of ubiquity both on the personal
union, and on the nature of Christ's glorified body, and of spiritual bodies in general.

» Luther, after the Scholastics, distinguished three ways in which a thing could
be in place: localiter or circumscriptive, definitive, and repletive. Localiter, as
when place and bodies correspond; as vi'ine in a vessel takes no more space, and
the vessel gives no more space, than the quantity of wine requires. Definitive,
when a thing is in a particular place, but cannot be measured by the space of
the place, takmg more or less room at will, as in the case of angels, who can be
either in a house or a nutshell. Repletive, when a thing is at the same time
wholly in all places, filling all places, and yet is measured and contained by no
place. This third way belongs to God alone. All three ways of being were, ac-
cording to Luther, possible for Christ's body. The first it had on earth when it
took and gave space according to its dimensions; the second when it rose out of
the grave through the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre and passed through
closed doors; the third it had and has in virtue of personal union with the omni-
present (iod. Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl Christi, Luther's Sainintliche Werhe,
30"- Band, Erlangen ed. pp, 207-217.

92 The Humiliation of Christ.

viz., by conceiving' of the ubiquity as ILLOCAL, and main-
taining the co-existence simultaneously in Christ of two
ways of being — a local existence here or there in space, and
an illocal, omnipresent being in the Logos to which the
humanity was united. He admitted frankly that local
ubiquity could not be predicated of Christ's humanity either
on earth or in heaven. " I am not ignorant," he says,
" that certain of the ancients disapproved of this saying:
the humanity of Christ is everywhere. I myself would dis-
approve of it if by this word (ubiqtie) locality were signi-
fied. Let us therefore docendi gratia posit a threefold
ubiquity — viz. a local, a repletive, and a personal. Now
there is nothing whatever, either spiritual or corporeal,
which is everywhere by a local ubiquity; but God alone by
His nature is everywhere by a repletive ubiquity. And
after the Son of God united to Himself humanity, it neces-
sarily follows that that humanity, assumed into the unity
of one person by the Son of God, is everywhere by 2. person-
al ubiquity."^ This distinction between a local and a
personal ubiquity — or, as it was afterwards epigrammati-
cally expressed, between a ubiquity in loco and a ubiquity
in Logo" — being allowed, the combination of an omnipres-
ent manner of existence with the limitations of earthly life
becomes easy. It can be said at once, as Brentz does say,
that Christ was confined within the Virgin's womb, and
filled the whole world ;^ that when He was in Bethany
about to ride on an ass into Jerusalem, He was at the same
moment in the Holy City and the Praetorium;* that at the
institution of the Holy Supper He sat circumscriptively in
one certain place at the table, and at the same time gave
to His disciples His own true body in the bread to be eat-
en, and His own true blood in the wine to be drunk.°

It will readily be seen that a theory which, to maintain
its consistency, did not shrink from such positions as these,
was not likely to find any insuperable difficulty in ascribing

1 De Personali unione, p. 842 .

« See Thomasius, ii. 418, on Aegidius Hunnius.

» De Divina Majestate Christi, p. 928.

* Eodem loco.

6 De Sessione Christi ad dext. Dei, p. 1073; see also De Incarnatione, I02I.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 93

to the humanity of Christ even on earth not only ubiquity,
the principal matter in dispute, but all other divine attributes.
This accordingly Brentz does. He invests the humanity
of Christ with all divine qualities, or, to use his favourite
phrase, comprehensive of everything, with DIVINE MAJESTY,
from the moment of Incarnation. He does not hesitate to
say that the ascension and the session at the right hand of
God took place not after the resurrection, but from the
very beginning, from the moment when the hypostatical
union of the two natures took place.^ Incarnation and
exaltation are in his view identical.^ He does not indeed
deny the historical reality of the ascension from the Mount
of Olives; he distinguishes it as the visible z.'-.zo.nV, from the
invisible one which took place at the moment of Incarna-
tion, and explains it to have been a spectacle economically
prepared by Christ, partly to fulfil Scripture, partly to make
the disciples understand that they were to be favoured no
longer with such apparitions as they had enjoyed during
the forty days following the resurrection; the time of such
general and familiar appearances being now at an end.'
It thus appears that, in the system of Brentz, the two
states of exaltation and humiliation are not successive, as
we have been accustomed to regard them, but rather si-
multaneous and co-existent. The only difference between
the earthly and the heavenly states is, that in the former
Christ was at once humbled and exalted in the same sense,
while in the latter He enjoys His exaltation unalloyed by

1 De Personali tinione, p. 847: Quid autem opus est, de tempore tantum resur-
rectionis et ascensionis Christi dicere, cum jam inde ab initio, in momento incar-
nationis suae ascendent invisibiliter in coelum, et ad dextram Dei patris sui sederit ?

2 De Div. Maj. p. 923: Deinde non est sentiendum, quod humanitas Cliristi
turn primum exaltata est in summam sublimitatem, et acceperit omnem poteslatem
in coelo et in terra, cum ascendit visibililer ex monte Oliveti in coelum, sed cum
verbum caro factum est, et cum in utero virginis Deus assumpsit hominem in
eandem personam.

3 De Ascensu Christi in Coelum, p. 1038; Voluit Christus hoc spectaculo finem
facere gencralium suarum apparitionum, quibus hactenus per quadraginta dies
veritatem resurrectionis suae testificatus est. Etsi enim postea visus estetiam Paulo:
tamen non apparuit amplius generaliter eo modo, quo per quadraginta dies ap-
paruit, ut una cum discipulis familiariter colloqueretur, ambularet, et convivaretur.
Hoc igitur externum spectaculum, ascensus Christi ex monte Oliveti, est clausula
eorum apparitionum, quibus se hactenus a resurrectione discipulis gratifecerat.

94 ^^^ Humiliation of Christ,

any accompanying humiliation. The earthly Christ com-
bined in Himself, so to speak, two humanities, a humbled
one, and an exalted one; this being omnipresent, omnis-
cient, omnipotent, etc., that localized, visible, tangible,
limited in knowledge and power. One is naturally sceptical
of the possibility of such a combination, and curious to
know by what means Brentz secures their mutual compati-
bility. But on careful examination, one finds that our au-
thor does not greatly trouble himself about the solution of
this difficult problem, but places majesty and exinanition
side by side, and leaves them to adjust themselves to one
another as best they can. He divides the things which
can happen to the person of Christ into tJiree grades. The
first grade is that of divine majesty, in which the man
Christ was from the beginning; the second grade is that of
exinanition or humiliation, in which He existed in the days
of His flesh till the resurrection; the third grade is that of
economy or dispensation, terms applicable to Christ's whole
life on earth, but which may be conveniently restricted to
those acts or events in which Christ after the resurrection,
and even after His ascension into heaven, appeared in one .
particular place, and shall appear in the last day.^ This
third grade Brentz explains after the following fashion. It
is economy when Christ does anything, or appears not ac-
cording to His majesty, but in accommodation to our power
of comprehension, or for our benefit. When He had risen
from the dead, and was being sought by the women in the
sepulchre, the angel said: " He is risen, He is not here." It
was truly said, but not j'uxta majestatcni, but juxta econo-
miam. He was not in the sepulchre dead, as the women
sought to find Him. He was not in the sepulchre accord-
ing to the external aspect. But He was nevertheless not
in the sepulchre only, but even in heaven and earth, ac-
cording to the majesty of His divinity — the divinity com-
municated to His humanity.^ The same epithet economical
is applied to the appearances of the risen Christ, to His
eating, to the printsof the nails which He showed to Thomas.
These things did not form a part of Christ's Jnnniliation,
for that was past; but neither did they belong to His

' De Divina Majestate Cliristi, p. 928. 2 Ibid. p. 929.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 95

exaltation, for the glorified body of the Saviour is neither
visible, nor disfigured by wounds, nor liable to hunger; they
were simply an accommodation or condescension to the
weakness of the disciples.

Passing over this third grade, and returning to the ques-
tion concerning the compatibility of the other two, we find,
as already stated, that Brentz does little more than assert
their actual co-existence. Christ the man, being born, was
bound in swaddling-clothes and laid in a manger; and if
you regard His exinanition. He was not then in any other
place; but if you consider His majesty. He could not be
confined to the manger, but filled the whole universe. He
lay in the sepulchre dead, exinanitione; He governed heaven
and earth alive, majcstate. With reference to the attribute
of omniscience, indeed, the author expresses himself with
less decision. Alluding to certain passages in Luther's
writings, quoted by opponents, in which Christ is spoken
of as like other men, not thinking of all things at once, or
seeing, hearing, and feeling all things at the same time,
he explains that these statements are to be understood
with reference to the exinanition; so that while, if you look
at the majesty of the man Christ, He was from the begin-
ning of the Incarnation in forma Dei, and could think, hear,
see, and feel all things at one time, nevertheless He hum-
bled Himself, and was made in the likeness of men, so that
He now eat, now drank, now preached, now slept, and did
not always think or see all things.^ This could, this potuit,
is not thoroughgoing; it is the only hesitating word to be
found in Brentz. To be consistent, he ought rather to have
affirmed that Christ saw, and yet did not seem to see, all
things at once. The logic of his theory required him to
affirm a dissembled omniscience and omnipotence, as well
as an invisible omnipresence. And when he is speaking in
general terms of the majesty, he shows that he is fully
aware of what his system demands. He expressly says
that Christ dissembled His majesty in the time of exin-
anition; ^ meaning that it was there in all its fulness, but

• De Incarnatione, p. looi.

* Ibid. p. 1027: Personalis unio duanim naturarum in Christo non ita est intel-
ligenda, quod divinitas mutetur in humanitatem, aut quod humanitas fuerit ab

06 The Humiliation of Christ,

only concealed from view by the servile form assumed in
hamility, and because the work of salvation made such
assumption necessary; not always or perfectly concealed,
however; for although in the time of His humility He did
not exhibit the supreme majesty which He had, neverthe-
less He did not altogether so dissemble it (our author as-
sures us) that it did not sometimes appear, as in the forty
days' fast, the walking on the waters, the occasional as-
sumption of invisibility, and the transfiguration/

In passing from John Brentz to Martin Chemnitz we
enter into a very different intellectual and moral climate,
the author of the work on the two natures of Christ (De
dtiabiis naturis in Christo) being a scholar thoroughly
acquainted with the literature of his subject, and able to
enrich his pages with a multitude of apt quotations, patris-
tic and scholastic, and at the same time a man of a calm,
dignified, peace-loving temper. Of this excellent book, in
which it is easy to recognise the sobering and modifying
influence of extensive knowledge, and of cordial sympathy
with men representing diverse theological tendencies, well
becoming one who had been a disciple both of Luther and
of Melanchthon," it would be a pleasant task to give a full
analysis, but I must content myself here with a brief
indication of the points in which the Christological system
contained therein differs from that of the Wiirtemberg
reformer/

aeterno, aut quod humanitas transfuderit suas imbecillitates in divinitakem, sed
quod salva utriusque substantia divinitas ornavit in incainatione humanitatem omni
sua majestate, quam tameti majestatcin humanitas, tempore cximmitioms, suo
medo dissimulavit, donee earn resurrectione, et missione Spiiitus Sancti, Ecclesiae,
quantum quidem in hoc seculo ad salutem cognitu necessaiium est, patefecit. This
sentence is a brief statement of Brentz' whole theory at the close of his treatise on
the Incarnation. i De Personali iinione, p. 848.

" Melanchtlion, as is well known, took the Reformed view of the person of
Christ and of Christ's presence in the Supper.

3 For a more detailed account of both the Brentian and the Chemnitzian Chris-
tology, readers are referred to Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii., and stiil
better to Thomasius, Christi Person tind Werk, vol. ii. pp. 342-404. Those who
desire to peruse a clear exposition of the Lutheran Christology in all the stages of
its history, will find what they want in the valuable work of the last-named author,
who devotes upwards of two hundred pages to the subject (vol. ii. 307-526), and
tlraces the course of the controversy from Luther to the period of the Saxon Decisi-
at the close of the Tubingen-Geissen dispute, in a very lucid and interesting manner.

Ltitheran and Reformed Christologies. 97

In common with Brentz and all advocates of the Lutheran
Christology, Chemnitz held that the personal union of the
two natures involved a real communication of the proper-
ties of the divine nature to the human, limited only by the
principle that each nature must preserve its essential prop-
erties, earnestly repudiating the Reformed conception of
the union as a sustentation of the human by the divine, or
as a mere gluing together of two separate and entirely
heterogeneous natures/ He differed from Brentz in the ap-
plication of the limiting principle, in the view he took of
the mode and the effect of the communication, and in the
adjustment of the same to the state of exinanition. As to
the first point, Chemnitz held visibility, tangibility, exist-
ence in loco, to be essential properties of matter; and by
the accidential properties of Christ's humanity he under-
stood the infirmities to which human nature is liable on
accountof sin, and which Christ in the state of exinanition
voluntarily assumed that He might suffer for us." In ac-
cordance with this view, he consistently held that even
the post-resurrection, glorified body of Christ possessed,
and will for ever possess, figure, and a localized manner of
being. Jesus rose from the dead with that very substance
of human nature which He received from the Virgin Mary,
having hands, feet, sides, flesh, bones; in that body He
ascended to heaven, and He will return to judgment as He
was seen to ascend, so that men shall see that very body
which they pierced with nails in the passion.^ The ascen-
sion was not a mere economic spectacle, but the actual
progress through space of a real body rising gradually from
earth up to a locally defined heaven.* And as Christ while
on earth was in loco as to His body, just like other men;
so now, according to natural law. He occupies with His
glorified body a certain space, just as saints after the res-
urrection will do, whose bodies, though spiritual, will still
be material, not angelic in nature.^ Even the glorified

• De duab. nat. caput v. pp. 24, 25.

* Ibid. p. 4: Naturale ratione sit (hum. nat.) visibilis, palpabilis, physica loca-
tione uno loco circumscripta. Accidentalia idiomata vocantur infirmitates propter
peccatum humanae naturae impositae.

3 Ibid. p. 17. 4 Ibid. p. 185. 6 Ibid. p. 186.

98 Tlie HiLmiliation of Christ.

body of the Redeemer is by itself and of itself bounded by
the property of its nature, and after the manner of glorified
bodies is somewhere; and the zvJicre is not on earth. Ordi-
narily, Christ is now no longer present in His Church,
either after the mode of His earthly body or after the mode
of His glorified body.'

On the subject of the connminicatio idiomatmn, Chemnitz,
while asserting the Lutheran position against the Reformed,
was particularly careful to guard against anything like ex-
aequation of the natures. While Brentz boldly set aside
the 2t.x.\ova fiiiitum 7ion capax infiniti as virtually rendering
the Incarnation impossible, Chemnitz allowed its validity,
and admitted that no divine property could become habit-
ually or formally a property of humanity. He therefore
conceived of the communication in question, not as an
endowment of the human nature of Christ with a second-
hand divinity, which after the endowment has once taken
place it can claim as its own, but rather as a pervasion of
the human nature by the divine, using it as its organ, and
exerting its energy in, through, and with it." His watch-
word, borrowed from John of Damascus, is TtEpix6pi]6ii; and
his favourite, oft-repeated, elaborately-expounded, illustra-
tive figure, the patristic mass of heated iron. He carefully
prepares his way for the assertion and proof of this pervasion
of the human organ by the divine actor, by a systematic
classification of all the different modes in which communica-
tion of the natures can take place, scrupulously pointing out

' De diiab. nat. pp. 186, 187: De modo igitur praesentiae juxta ratioi>em et
conditionem hujus seculi, visibili, sensibili, locali ac circumscripto dicta ilia loqu-
untur — secundum quern modum praesentiae Christus jam ordinarie ecclesiae suae
interris non amplius est. ... Et hac etiam forma visibili seu conditione corporura
glonficatorum Christus corpora suo, nobis in hac vita in ecclesia in terris militante
non est praesens, sed in coelis, unde ad judicium redibit.

2 De diiab. nat. p. 126: Quod scilicet div. nat. rou \6yov non transfuderit
extra se in assumptam naturam majestatem, virtutem, potentiam, et operationem
eandem cum divina, vel aequalem divinae majestati, virtuti, potentiae, et opera-
tioni quae a divinitate separata, proprie, peculiariter et distinctim, formaliter, habi-
t uUter aut subjective, liumanitati, et secundum se inhaerunt sed quod tota pleni-
tudo divinitatis in assumpta natura personaliter ita habitet, ut div. majestas tota
sua plenitudine in nat. assumpta luceat; utque div. virtus, et polentia, majestatis
et orrnipqtentiae suae opera in assumpta natura cum ilia, tti per illam exerceat et
perficiat. These prepositions, in, cum, per, constitute a standing formula for
Chemnitz.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 99

how far the Reformed go along with him, and showing
manifest anxiety to go as far with them as he can. Then
at length he takes his stand on this point of difference; but
even here he does not wholly differ from his opponents, for
he includes under his third and highest grade not only the
divine properties communicated to the humanity after the
manner in which the power of burning is conveyed to heated
iron, but those hyperphysical extraordinary gifts and graces
with which the Reformed themselves declared the human
nature of Christ to have been endowed in order that it
might become a fit organ of Deity/ Indeed, it is question-
able whether there was any serious difference of a theoretical
kind between the Reformed and him. For granted, on the
one hand, as Chemnitz does grant, that the divine attributes
are the divine essence, and therefore inseparable from it,
and on the other, that whatever habitually or formally
belongs to human nature must be finite, there does not
seem much harm in the doctrine of perichoresis, according
to which the Logos pervaded the humanity as fire pervades
heated iron, or the human soul pervades the body. The
point of divergence lay not so much in the theory as in
the use made of it in connection with the sacramentarian
controversy.^

The position taken up by Chemnitz on the subject of

' De dnab. nat. caput xii. Chemnitz was the first to make such a classification,
though Damascenus had made such distinctions as might easily suggest the scheme
to his mind. He distributed idiomatic propositions into three classes: the first, in
which the subject is the whole person hi concreto, the predicate a property of either
nature; the second, in which the subject is either nature, the predicate an activity
pertaining to the work of redemption in which both natures concur; the third, \\\
which divine properties are ascribed realiter to the human nature. These kinds
of propositions in the dialect of the Lutheran scholastics were distinguished respec-
tively as the genus idiomaiicitm, the genus apotelistjtaticwn, and the genus majes-
taticum or attchematicitm. Strauss {Ghntbenslehre, ii. 134) remarks that to be
complete a fourth genus should have been added, viz. gemis raittiv wvxkov ; in-
cluding those propositions in which human properties, such as suffering, death, etc.,
are ascribed to the divine nature. The dispute between the Lutherans and the
Reformed had reference to the third genus. Thomasius is of opinion that by this
classification Chemnitz did no real service to Christology, but only tended to foster a
scholastic way of teaching the subject (vol. ii. 387).

"^ Dorner {Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 204) remarks that Danaeus ob-
jected mainly to the second part of Chemnitz' treatise, that which treats of the
presence of the whole person of Christ in the Church.

lOO The Htimiliatioii of Christ.

Christ's bodily presence in the Supper, and in the Church
generally, was different both from that of the Reformed and
from that of Brentz. His characteristic doctrine is not that
Christ in His whole person is everywhere present, but that
He is able to be present when, ivhcj-e, and Iwzv He pleases,
even in invisible form.' He teaches not a necessary omni-
presence, but a hypothetical or optional multipresence.
He acknowledges that such multipresence is not only
above, but contrary to, the nature of body; and he frankly
admits that had there been no express word or special
promise in Scripture concerning Christ's presence, even in
His human nature, in the Church, he would neither have
dared nor wished to teach anything on the subject. He
dogmatizes only because Christ said, " This is my body."
And he thinks it right to limit dogmatism to the cases
specified in Scripture. He declines to say whether the
body of Christ be in stones, trees, etc., as Luther affirmed,
because there is no evidence that Christ wishes His body
to be there, and the discussion of such questions yields no
edification; and for the rest, all such mysteries are relegated
to the Eternal School, to which our author often piously
refers, and where he humbly hopes to learn many things he
does not understand now, and among them the incompre-
hensible riddles arising out of the Incarnation. At the
same time, while grounding his doctrine of potential om-
nipresence on the words of Scripture, Chemnitz holds it
to be a legitimate deduction from the union of natures.
For him, as for all adherents of the Lutheran Christology,
it is a sacred canon: after the union the Logos is not
outside the flesh, nor the flesh outside the Logos {Logos ?ioii
extra carnein, et caro non extra Aoyov). To deny that
canon, as the Reformed did, is to deny the Incarnation.^
From this canon it follows that the humanity is always

1 De ditah. nat. p. iS8: Christum, licet naturalem modum praesentiae coi-poris
sui, ordinarie terris abstulerit . . . tamen suo corpore, etiam post ascensionem,
et ante judicium praesentem adesse, aut praesentiam corporis sui exliibere posse iti
terris, quandocunque, ubicunque et quomodocunque vult, etiam iiivisibili forma.

s De duab. nat. p. 2o: Quae unio adeo arcta, individua, inseparabilis, et indis-
solubilis est, ut div. nat. roij Aoyov nee velit, nee possit, nee delieat extra banc
cum carne unionem, sed in arctissmia ilia unione cogitari, quaeri, aut apprehendi;
caro etiam assumpta, non extra, sed intra intimuni rov Xoyoii assumentis com-

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. loi

intimately, inseparably, and indistanter present to the
Logos;' and from this presence to the Logos follows in
turn the possibility of the humanity being present at will
to any part of the creation. Why only the possibility is
inferred, is a question which naturally arises. One would
suppose that if the humanity be always present to the
Logos in virtue of the union, it must also be present in
some manner, local or illocal, to the universe. But it is
not our business to justify, but merely to expound, the theory
now under consideration. This limitation of the effect of
the union and communion of the natures to a merely
potential omnipresence or multipresence was the peculiarity
of Chemnitz and his school, and one of the outstanding
points of difference between him and Brentz. It was a
point greatly debated in after days in the controversy
between the Giessen and the Tubingen theologians; the
Giessen men contending for the distinction between the
two kinds of presence, that to the Logos and that to the
world, which had come to be named respectively //7?r.yr«//i«
intima and praescntia cxtima, and holding that the former
involved only the possibility of the latter; the Tubingen
men holding that the distinction in question was imaginary,
and that a potential omnipresence was an absurdity. The
course of the debate ran into very subtle discussions, which
it would be unprofitable and tedious to speak of here.
Suffice it to say, that much use was made on the Giessen
side of the Chemnitzian conception of the divine majesty
communicated to Christ's humanity as ENERGY: the Logos,

plexum cogitanda, quarenda, et apprehenda est. Again, p. 194: Ratione hypos-
taticae unionis jam post Incarnationem, persona rov Xoyov extra unionem cum
assumpta natura, et sine ea seorsim aut separatim, nee cogitari nee credi pie et
recte vel potest vel debet; nee vicissim assumpta natura extra Xoyov, et sine eo.
' De diiab. nat. p. 195: Ita ergo toti plenitudini Deitatis filii personaliter unita
est assumpta nat. ut Xoyoi intra arcanum, arctissimum, intimum, profundissimum
et praesentissimum complexum totius div. suae naturae, quae supra et extra omnem
locum est, secum, intra se, apud se, et penes se, personaliter unitam atque prae-
sentissimam semper habeat, et in ilia plenitudine imitae Deitatis assumpta natura
suam aSiaipETov uai ddiddtarov, juxta Damascenum, individuam seu insep-
arabilem, et indistantem, seu locorum intervallo indisjunctam habeat immanentiam.
Haec vero praesentia non constat ratione aliqua aut conditione hujus seculi, quae
ratione nostra comprehendi possit, sed est magnum, incomprehensibile et inennar-
rabile illud mysterium hypostaticae unionis.

I02 The Huiniliatioii of Christ.

according to Chemnitz, communicated His energy to the
human nature, as heat communicates its virtue to iron.
By this way of conceiving the matter he tried to meet the
objection, that if any divine attributes were communicated
to Christ's human nature, all must have been, for example,
eternity and immensity. These attributes, he said, are
quiescent; they remain within the divine essence; they have
no operation ad extra; therefore they are not directly com-
municated, but only indirectly through their connection
in the divine nature with the operative attributes.^ The
Giessen theologians applied this distinction between opera-
tive and inoperative attributes to the question of ubiquity.
They said, by omnipresence is meant not immensity, which
is an incommunicable attribute of Deity, but presence in the
world as an actor, — operative omnipresence. But God is
free in action, therefore He is free to be present to the
world or not as He pleases. The use of presence is a matter
of free will.^ This sample of controversial subtlety may
suffice as an illustration of the thorny paths into which the
dialectics of the Lutheran Christology led its adherents.
Let us return to Chemnitz, that we may, in the last place,
make ourselves acquainted with his view of the exinanition.
On this subject, as on that of ubiquity, the position taken
up by Chemnitz is difficult to understand, for the simple
reason that it is not self-consistent, being an eclectic at-
tempt to combine opposite points of view. Generally
speaking, however, his doctrine may be discriminated from
that taught by Brentz as follows. The Brentian state of
exinanition (statiis exinanitionis) consisted in possession,
with habitual furtive use of majesty; the Chemnitzian, in
possession, with occasional use and prevailing non-use.
According to Brentz, Christ in His state of humiliation not
only could use, but did use, and cotdd not help using. His
majesty as a communicated attribute of His human nature;
only in that state the use was dissembled, hidden; while
in the state of exaltation it is open. According to Chem-
nitz, Christ in the state of humiliation could use majesty in,
through, and with His humanity, and sometimes did use it

' De duab. nat. p. 127.

* Usurpatio pracscntiae est liberrimae voluntatis; see Thomasius, vol. ii. p. 431,

L^dheran and Reformed Christologies. T03

to show the fact of possession; but generally He did not
wish to use it. In the state of exaltation, on the other
hand, He entered into the full and manifest use of His di-
vine majesty in and by His assumed human nature.^ Some-
times Chemnitz seems inclined to ascribe not only partial
use, but even partial defective possession, to the status hii-
Diilis. He adopts from Ambrose the idea of a retraction
on the part of the Logos, as explaining the exinanition.
The power, he says, and operation of the Logos was not
idle per se in the time of exinanition, but administered all
things everywhere with the Father and the Spirit; but in
the human nature during that time He concealed His
glory, power, and operation under the infirmities of the
flesh, and, as Ambrose speaks, withdrew it from activity,'
so that natural properties and infirmities alone seemed to
abide and predominate in the assumed nature not merely
in the face of men, but even before God; while, neverthe-
less, that fulness of divinity in the Logos elsewhere per-
formed most powerfully all things with the Father and the
Holy Ghost.^ This passage not only teaches by implica-
tion partial non- possession of majesty by the humanity in
the state of humiliation, but involves a contradiction of the
Lutheran axiom, Logos non extra carnein, representing the
Logos as, in the state of humiliation, operative where the

• Chemnitz' usual phrase to describe the exaltation is the plenary and manifest
use and exhibition of majesty. Thus, cap. xxxiii. p. 215: Per sessionem vero ad
dexteram Dei ingressus est in plenariam et manifestam usurpationem et ostensionem
ejus potentiae, virtutis, et gloriae Deitatis, quae tota plenitudine personaliter in
assumpta natura ab initio unionis habitavit. Thomasius (ii. 401) represents Chem-
nitz as applying the itxras plenaria and manifest a io possessio as well as tisitrpatio,
in describing the state of exaltation, and quotes in j^roof the following: Deposita
servi forma, assumpta natura humana ad plenariam et manifestam ejus majestatis
possessionem et usurpationem, per sessionem ad dextram Dei, collocata et exaltata
est. These words have escaped my observation in reading Chemnitz' treatise, but
it is quite possible they do occur; for the author's doctrine is not self-consistent,
the retractio of which he speaks really implying partial non-possession, defective
itzpix^^PV'^^''-' iiKiperfect communication of heat to the iron; and, moreover, a
similar mode of expression occurs in the Formula of Concord which Chemnitz
helped to compose; see part ii. cap. viii. § 26: Ad plenam possessionem, et div.
majestatis usurpationem evectus est.

■•i Ab opcre retraxit, p. 217.

3 Cum tamen interea plenitudo ilia divinitatis 'X.oyov alibi omnia fortissime cum
Patre et Spiritu Sancto operaretur. — P. 217.

I04 The Humiliation of Christ.

humanity was not. Yet Chemnitz can hardly have meant
to teach the Calvinistic extra, as it was called by the Tu-
bingen theologians of a later generation in their warfare
with their opponents of Giessen, whom they charged with
entertaining that notion so abhorrent to all thoroughgoing
Lutherans; for he speaks of Christ, even in the state of
humiliation, as showing when He wished that the fulness
of divinity dwelt in His flesh, and as manifesting its use as
far as He wished through the assumed nature/ On the
whole, his idea of the exinanition seems to have been full
possession, the necessary consequence of the personal
union, but prevalent abstinence from use, so as to present
the aspect of non-possession, — the mass of iron being heat-
ed through and through, yet remaining black to sight and
cold to feeling. The illustration is the author's own, and
it serves well not only to explain his idea, but to show the
difficulty of his theory of a possession unaccompanied by
use. Exinanition in this view is a perpetual miracle, well
characterized by the author himself as incomprehensible
and indescribable.^ When the theory is applied to om-
niscience, the exinanition appears not only a miracle, but,
as the school of Tubingen maintained against the school
of Giessen, an impossibility. For what can we understand
by abstinence from the use of omniscience } Chemnitz him-
self seems to have found it hard to tell, for his statement
on this point looks like the utterance of a man at his wits'
end. "Christ, as to His divine nature, had omniscience;
as to His human nature, He had infused habits of knowledge
in which He grew. But even when He grew in wisdom He
was full of wisdom, because the plenitude, as of Deity, so
of wisdom and divine knowledge, dwelt personally in the

' Christus, ipso tempore exinanitionis, quando voluit ostendit plenitudinem illam
in sua came habitare, etusum ejus quando voluit, et quantum voluit, per assump-
tam naturam, ipso exinanitionis tempore exercuit, manifestavit, exeruit.

2 Haec est incomprehensibilis et inennarrabilis exinanitio. Infinitis enim modis
plus est, quam si ignis in ferro prorsus ignito, nee speciem, nee vim, nee operati-
onem suam exereret. — P. 217. Again, p. 218: Si in ferro undiquaque perfecte
ignito Deus manifestationem et operationem virtutis lucendi et urendi ad tempus
supersedeat, ut frigidum, nigrum, et obscurum videntibus et contrectantibus ap-
pareret. That represents the state of humiliation. The state of exaltation is when
Ihe iron is not only heated, but shows its heat — vim suum lucendi et urendi

Liithcran and Reformed Christologies. io5

assumed nature, in which and through which, as far as the
exinanition would allow, it manifested itself more and more.
Whence in the time of exinanition Christ's human nature
conldh& ignorant and grow in wisdom; but in the state of
exaltation it is omniscient indeed." ^

' Such were the two forms which the Lutheran Christol-
ogy assumed in the hands of Brentz and Chemnitz. It is
manifest that they present sufficient points of difference to
make any attempt at reconciliation somewhat difficult.
An attempt, however, was made by representatives of the
Swabian and Lower Saxon schools, — Chemnitz himself
taking a leading part in the work of reconciliation, — and
the Formula of Concord was the result. The method of
reconciliation adopted in the composition of this ecclesi-
astical symbol was that of giving and taking; opposite
points of view being placed side by side, and troublesome
questions being passed over sub silentio. It was declared,
e.g., that in the personal union each nature retains its es-
sential properties; but while the essential properties of the
divine nature are carefully enumerated, the essential prop-
erties of the human nature are not distinguished from the
accidental. To be bounded and circumscribed, and to be
moved from place to place, are mixed up with properties
which are certainly accidental, such as to suffer and die;
and we are not told whether the former are essential or
not. The whole list are simply called properties. It is
further declared that the human nature of Christ was ex-
alted to the possession of divine properties over and above
its own spiritual and natural ones; and that this exaltation
to divine majesty took place first throiigJi tlic personal union,
even from the moment of conception, and afterward through
glorification after the resurrection; and in proof of the pos-
session of majesty from the first, is adduced birth from the
Virgin inviolata ipsius virginitate} This majesty of the hu-
man nature, however, we are told, was for the most part
concealed in the state of exinanition, and as it were dis-
sembled,— secret use being implied.' Yet in another place
possession without use, kenosis as to use in opposition to

' P. 139. 2 Formula of Concord, part ii. c. viii. 8.

3 Formula of Concord, part ii. c, viii. 12, 13.

io6 TJie Hwniliation of CJu'ist.

krypsis, is asserted.' Christ always was in possession of
the majesty in virtue of the personal union, but He emptied
Himself in the state of humiliation; and hence it came that
He grew in age, wisdom, and grace, and only after His
resurrection entered into a plenary use, as a man, of omni-
science, omnipotence, and omnipresence; or, as it is put in
another place, into a full possession and use of divine ma-
jesty." On the subject of ubiquity, both a hypothetical
and a general or necessary omnipresence were taught. The
Chemnitzian phrase, Christ can be with His body wherever
He wishes, is used, and at the same time quotations from
Luther are made, which assert in the strongest possible
manner an absolute omnipresence, rendering of course the
assertion of a power to be present anywhere at pleasure
quite superfluous. Of the distinction suggested by Chem-
nitz between presence to the Logos and presence to the
world, no notice is taken.

A document constructed on such a principle of compro-
mise, and so open to a double interpretation, was not likely
to put an end to controversy; and certainly the Formula
of Concord utterly failed to produce that effect. It only
.supplied material for fresh disputes to another generation,
in which the combatants ranged themselves respectively
on the Brentian and the Chemnitzian sides; each party
being able to find something in the formula in support of
its particular views. On one most important subject the
symbol was specially vague and unsatisfactory, that, viz., of
the relation of the majesty communicated to the human
nature of Christ, by the personal union, to His earthly state
of humiliation. It seemed to teach at once full possession
and secret use; full possession and prevalent abstinence
from use; and not only partial use, but even partial and
defective possession. Here was a question around which
fierce strife was sure to be waged. Possession with hidden
use, or possession without use, involving in some sense
even defective possession; on which side did the truth lie }

' Formula of Concord, part ii. c. viii. 66.

« Ibid, part ;. c. viii. i6. In part ii. cap. viii. 22, a partial and occasionally
manifest use of majesty by Chris/, /r^? Uberrima voluntate in the statu exinaniti-
oms is taught.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 107

Around these points skirmishing went on incessantly for a
generation, until at length the great final war between
Tubingen and Giessen broke out, in which the combatants
went into battle to the respective war-cries of krypsis and
kenosis, and fought with indomitable prowess and deadly
bitterness for the space of some twenty years, till its noise
was drowned in the louder din of a still more protracted
. war, carried on for another cause, with more substantial but
not more carnal weapons.^

r. Proceeding now to offer a few critical observations on
the Lutheran Christology, I begin by repeating a remark
already made, that the principle on which the system is
based is therein arbitrarily applied. That principle is, that
the union of natures in one person involves communication
of attributes; and there seems to be no reason a priori why
the communication should not be reciprocal.' But we are
given to understand that the communication is all on
one side; divine attributes are communicated to the human
nature, but not vice versa. The axioms finituni non ca-
pax iiifiniti is set aside, while the correlative proposition
infiiutiLjn non capax finiti is assumed to be axiomatically
certain. In the classification of the various kinds of com-
munications, one, by which the human nature becomes
partaker of the majesty of Deity, is recognised; but for one
by which the divine nature becomes partaker of the weak-
ness, and subject to the measures of human nature, no place
is found. ^ God is not at liberty to descend; He can only

' See Appendix, Note B.

■-^ Gerhard says on this point: In hoc communicationis genera reciprocatio non
habet locum. Ratio haec est, quia div. nat. est simpliciter dvaWoiooitoi xai
dj^iETCcfiXifvoi, ideo per unionem nee perfici, nee minui, nee evehi, nee deprimi
potuil; hum. autem nat. quia humilis est el IvSej}? ideo per unionem potuit exal-
tari, evehi ac perfici. Nee est, quod regeras, unionem esse reciprocam, proinde
etiam communicationem. Quamvis autem unio respectu sui ipsius considerata sit
aequalis et reciproca, tamen ratione unitarum naturarum considerata exhibet nobis
hanc differentiam, quod in unione 6 Xoyoi sit assumens, caro autem sit assumpta:
d Ad^oS assumpsit carnem, caro autem non assumpsit A-oyov, jam vero assumpti
provectio est, non assumentis, ut dicunt pii veteres. — Loci iv. c. xii. § cci.

3 Thomasius, ii. p. 459, points out that the Tubingen theologians in their con-
troversy with the Giessen school taught a genus tapeinoticon, and says that in this
they returned to Luther, and enriched the Lutheran Christology. This genus,
however, called iStoTtoirjdii or oiuEioodii, was not analogous to the genus

loS The Humiliation of CJuHst.

make man ascend: Incarnation means not God becoming'
man, but man becoming- God. Now this one-sided appli-
cation of the distinctive principle might be politic and
prudent, but it is not logical; nor can it boast of any moral
recommendations to compensate for its want of logic. It is
not a doctrine worthy of all acceptation, that Incarnation
cannot possibly mean the humiliation of God, but must
signify the exaltation or deification of man. It is a doctrine
contrary to the spirit of Scripture,^ and to right ideas of
the glory of God. This constant talk about the majesty
communicated to the humanity of Christ in virtue of the
personal union, savours of moral vulgarity, inasmuch as it
implies that God's glory lies not in His grace, but chiefly
in being infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so forth.
If obliged to make a choice, I would rather take up with
the gouts tapcinoticum than with the genus aiicheinaticum^
to speak in the language of the schools; in plain terms, a
God letting Himself down to man's level seems a grander
thing than a God raising man to His level, especially when
the latter is not an act of grace, but of necessity, a con-
dition sine qua non of Incarnation.

2. The Lutheran Christology, to say the least, threat-
ens with extinction the reality of Christ's human nature.
Doubtless its advocates are careful to say that each nature
after the union retains its essential properties, and to pro-
test against their doctrine being held to imply confusion,
equalization, or abolition of the natures; and, of course,
we believe that they did not mean to teach such errors.
But if the question be. What are the logical consequences
of their theory .'' it is difficult to see how such conclusions
can be avoided. It does not suffice to save the reality of
the humanity to say, with Brentz, that the Deity possessed

auchematiatm. Neither the Tubingen theologians nor Luther ascribed to the di-
vine nature human quahties as they ascribed human qualities to the human nature;
but only in the sense in which the Reformed understood the doctrine of the fom-
miinicatio idiomatum.

' Lutheran theologians admitted that the ancients identified exinanitio with incar-
natio, but claimed to have Scripture on their side when they taught that exi7ianitio
proper was subsequent in idea to the Incarnation. Hence they called exinanitio
in the former sense ecclesiastica, and exinanitio in their own sense Biblica, So
Gerhard, loci iv. cap. xiv, § xciii.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 109

by that nature is a communicated one; for the whole ques-
tion is, whether such communication be compatible with the
nature of that humanity. As to the attribute of ubiquity,
indeed, it must be admitted that the ingenious distinction
between local and illocal presence evades the argument
drawn by the Reformed from the reality of Christ's body
against the ascription of that attribute to the human nature.
If any one choose to ascribe to Christ's body an illocal
ubiquity, he cannot be refuted, any more than he could be
refuted were he to ascribe a similar ubiquity to the body
of any ordinary man. The only question is, whether this
illocal ubiquity be itself a reality, or only a mere ghost,
with which no man can fight, — an invention to save a
theory, and by which, while saved in appearance, the
theory is substantially sacrificed. The authors of the Re-
formed reply to the Formula of Concord characterized the
Lutheran distinctions between various kinds of presences
as impudent and wicked sophisms, cunningly and fraud-
ulently devised to defend a false position.^ This may be
rather strong language, but the statement is substantially
correct; and one cannot but feel that when once refuge was
taken in the epithet " illocal," the controversy concerning
the communication of omnipresence to the humanity of
Christ degenerated, as Le Blanc hints, into a mere logo-
machy.^ The distinction between the two kinds of presence
is virtually a giving up of the theory. The same remark
may be made with reference to the Chemnitzian mode of

' Admonitio Neostadtiensis, c. viii., falsa hypothesis iv. Hae strophae et
Sphingis aenigmata nihil sunt nisi impudentissima et nequissima sophismata ad
illudendum Deo, et decipiendos homines, versute et fraudulenter excogitata, etc.
The Admonitio is contained among the works of Zachary Ursinus, the author and
expositor of the Heidelberg Catechism.

2 Theses Theologicae: De unione duarum in Christo naturarum et inde conse-
quente idiomatum communicatione. Le Blanc says: Qua in controversia forte plus
est logomachiae atque pertinaciae, quam realis discriminis, nam aliquo sensu con-
cedere possumus, realem communicationem proprietatum naturae divinae naturae
Christ! humanae factum esse, quaienus ut dictum est, in natura ilia humana realiier
et personaliter inhabitat, et est divinitas cum omnibus suis proprietatibus, quemad-
modum realiter ignis est in ferro ignito, sed quemadmodum ex ilia ignis cum ferro
unione recte quidem diccre possumus, ferrum hoc urit, ferrum hoc candit, non
tamen recte dicitur, ferrcitas urit, ferreitas lucet, quia ignis in ferro, non ipsa tanieu
ferri natura, ita agit.

no The Humiliation of Christ.

conceiving the communication of divine attributes in gen-
eral to the human nature as analogous to the pervasion of
iron by heat. There can be no doubt that this manner of
representing the matter effectually guards against equaliz-
ing of the natures. But it does this by failing to teach the
Lutheran doctrine of communication. For what the heat
communicates to the iron is not anything contrary to, or
even above, the nature of the latter; for it is the nature of
iron to receive heat, and by it to be made hot and lumin-
ous. This illustration, therefore, of heated iron, to which
Chemnitz was so partial, does not suffice to justify a com-
munication of all divine attributes to the human nature,
but only such a communication as the Reformed Christology
allowed, — a communication, viz., of all the gifts and graces
which human nature is capable of receiving. "^

3. This theory, consistently worked out, leaves no room
ifor such an exinanition in the earthly life of Christ as shall
-satisfy the requirements of historical truth and the aim. of
-the Incarnation. The humiliation which is admitted to be
soteriologically necessary is Christologically impossible.
The act of Incarnation endows the human nature of Christ
with attributes, of which no doctrine of exinanition, how-
ever ingeniously constructed, can deprive it, without de-
stroying the Christological basis on which the whole
superstructure rests. The distinction between possession
and use is entirely inadequate to the task of reducing the
humanity, supposed to be already endowed with divine ma-
jesty, tothe sober measures of the kenosis. This is specially
manifest in reference to the attributes of omniscience and
omnipresence, to which the distinction cannot even be in-
telligibly applied. No doubt attempts were made by the
Lutheran theologians to apply the distinction to these at-

< Tlie Reformed theologians were not slow to point this out. Sadeel, e.g.,
remarks that the ancients used the simile of the burning sword principally wiih
reference to the soul of Christ, to show how it gained from union with the Logos,
e g. in being sinless. He also remarks that though fire gives to iron heat and
light, it does not give it its own property of ascending, and in like manner " o
koyoi non ea tribuit hum. nat. quorum hum. ipsa nat. capax esse non potest,
cujusmodi est infinitum esse et ubique esse, sed earn illustrat suo fulgore, et exornat
dotibus incomprehensibilibus, quatenus ipsius naturae conditio fieri potest." — Z>.i
Veritate Humanae Naturae Christi, pp. 184, 185. To the same effect the Admon.
Neost.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. iii

tributes by the invention of other still more subtle distinc-
tions; but these attempts bear failure stamped on their front.
Gerhard, for example, following Chemnitz, disposes of the
omniscience of Christ in the state of exinanition in the fol-
lowing fashion: "We teach that the soul of Jesus in the
very first moment of the Incarnation was personally en-
riched, as with other divine excellences, so also with the
proper omniscience of the Logos, through and in virtue of
the real, most intimate, and indissoluble union and com-
munion with the Logos. But as He did not always use
His other gifts truly and really communicated to Him in
the state of exinanition, so also the omniscience personally
communicated to Him as man He did not always exercise
actu sccundo, and hence the soul of Christ truly made pro-
gress according to natural and habitual knowledge, — the
omniscient Logos not always exercising through the as-
sumed humanity His energy, which is actu to know all
things, but in the state of exaltation the full use of omnis-
cience at length ensued."^ The distinction taken in this
passage between the omniscience which the soul of Christ
possesses personaliter, and the limited knowledge which it
possessed natUraliter, means, if it means anything, that the
attribute of omniscience was not really communicated to
the human nature, but was merely possessed by the divine
person to whom that nature was united. That is to say,
the positing of the distinction is the giving up of the Lu-
theran theory, and a virtual return to the Reformed point of
view. As for the other distinction between being omnis-

' Loci iv. c. xii. § cclxxix.: Docemus animam Christi in primo status incama
tionis momento, ut aliis divinis t^oxccii, ita quoque omniscientia tov Xoyov
propria /^rj-^««//V^r esse ditatam per et propter realem, arctissimam et indissolu-
bilem cum Xoya omniscio unionem et noivooviav. Sed ut aliis donis, vere ac
realiter sibi communicatis in statu exinanitionis, non semper est usus, ita quoque
omniscientiam personaliter sibi ut humini communicatam non semper actu secundo
exeruit, ac proinde anima Christi juxta naturalem et habihtalem scientiam vere
profuit; Xoyo} omniscio kvepyEiav suam, quae est actu omnia scire et cognos-
cere, per assumptam humanitatem non semper exerente, sed in statu exaltationis
plena demum omniscientiae usurpatio fuit insequuta. Readers will observe in tbi*
passage a confusion of the person of Christ with His human nature. This use 6f
the concrete in place of the abstract, the man instead of the humanity, is charac-
teristic of the Lutherans, and was a frequent source of complaint on the part of
the Reformed.

1 1 2 The Humiliation of Christ.

cient actu primo, and exercising omniscience act2i seaindo,
it is simply one of the many subtleties which abound in the
Lutheran Christology, and tend to create suspicion as to
the soundness of a theory which stands in need of them.

The same thing may be said of the Chemnitzian distinc-
tion between praescntia intima or praesentia extiina, in-
tended to apply the principle of possession without use to
the attribute of omnipresence. The Tiibingen theologians
correctly characterized it as an ingenious invention for the
purpose of concealing the weak point in the system of their
opponents.^ It is, in truth, simply a disguised retreat from
the Lutheran position, Logos non extra carnem, which can-
not be maintained unless one be prepared to assert with
the school of Tubingen, that wherever the Son of God is,
there is the Son of man; and inasmuch as the Son of God,
even in the time of the humiliation, was not only present
to His flesh, but by a substantial propinquity to all creatures,
therefore also the human nature assumed into the unity of
the person was not only present to the Word, but also by
a substantial propinquity to all creatures. -

Speaking generally, it may be said that the Chemnitzian
school of Christologists saved the historical Christ, by in
effect sacrificing the communication of properties in the
Lutheran sense, in reference to the state of humiliation.
On the other hand, the Brentian school saved the Lutheran
theory at the expense of historical truth. The occult use
of divine majesty yields no real state of humiliation. The
later representatives of this school, sensible of this, sought
to remedy the defect of the Brentian doctrine of exinanition,
by the usual method of introducing some new subtle dis-
tinctions. They distinguished between direct and reflex use
of majesty,^ and asserted abstinence from the latter in the
state of humiliation; but only a partial abstinence, in con-
nection, namely, with the priestly office. Christ as a high
priest made no personal use of His majesty, while at the
same time He used it occultly as a king. Thus the later
Tubingen theory, in brief, was: exinanition in the sacerdotal
office by occultation and abstinence; in the kingly office,

' Thomasius ii. 450. * Ibid. ii. 450.

3 Ibid. ii. 469.

Lutheran and Reformed CJiidstologies. 1 1 3

by occultation alone.^ An utterly untenable theory, in-
volving the ascription to Christ at the same time, and with
reference to the same nature, of two series of contrary
states. As a king He was omnipresent, as a priest He
walked on earth in local circumscription; as a king He
reigned, when as a priest He suffered on the cross; as a
priest He truly died and rose again, as a king He continued
alive in an occult manner, and afterwards manifested Him-
self alive to men. Well might the Giessen theologians ask,
in reference to this theory: Who can exhaust the sea of
absurdities into which it leads .'' ^ Good right had they to
charge the advocates of such a theory with making the
earthly life of the Saviour a spectacle of simulated servitude
(spectaadiun simidatae servitntis ) ; as good a right, indeed,
as their opponents had to charge them with betraying the
cause of Lutheran Christology. Each party made good its
accusation against its rival; and the result of the Tiibingen-
Geissen controversy was, to substantiate the statement
that the Lutheran theory, consistently worked out, leaves
no room for a state of humiliation.

4. In the Lutheran theory, the state of exinanition, ad-
mitted to be a fact, is an effect without a cause. The
Gospels tell how Christ was conceived in the womb of the
Virgin, was born, grew gradually up to manhood, was in
all respects found in fashion as a man, subject to all sinless
human infirmities, and to the ordinary conditions of human
existence on earth. All these things the theory under
consideration recognises as historical realities, and reckons
to the state of exinanition; but it is unable to give any
satisfactory account of them. The Incarnation does not
account for them; for incarnation in the Lutheran Chris-
tology signifies simply the union of the Logos to a human-
ity endowed with divine attributes: omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, and as omnipresent possessing no locally cir-

' Exinanitio in officio sacerdotali, per occultationem et retractionem, in officio
regio per solam occultationem facta est. Luc. Osiander in Thomasius, ii. 469.

'>■ Thomasius, ii. 482: Ne plura dicenda sint, num Christus ut sacerdos vere
mortuus est et vere revixit, ut rex autem vivus permansit occulte et latenter, et
postea sese vivum liominibus manifestavit. Quis tandem exhauriat tantum mare
absurditalum .''

1 14 The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

cumscribed existence. Incarnation and exinanition are en-
tirely distinct; the former in idea precedes the latter, and
it does not necessarily involve the latter. How, then, is
the state of exinanition to be explained? Must we con-
ceive of the Incarnation as not merely in idea but in reality
preceding; and of the state of exinanition, including the
conception, as the result of a voluntary act of self-humil-
iation on the part of the already pre-existent God- man .'
There is no other alternative open, if the historical hu-
manity of Christ is not to be left standing as an inexplicable
riddle. The Lutheran theologians did not fairly face this
great difficulty besetting their theory. They shrank from
asserting the real existence of a humanity of Christ, prior
to the humanity which commenced with the conception;
but, in so doing, they simply deprived themselves of the
only possible means of accounting for the existence of the
latter.^

5. Once more, the Lutheran Christology, in its zeal for
the deification of Christ's humanity, really robs us of the
Incarnation. If, as Lutheran theologians taught, the per-
sonal union necessarily involves the communication of
divine attributes to the humanity, then, in so far as Christ's
liumanity was like ours, it was uninformed with Diety.
Christ, q2id real man, was mere man. The incarnate God
was not to be seen in Jesus of Nazareth; He was an airy,
ghostly personage, as invisible as God Himself, omnipresent
after an illocal manner, intangible, superior to all human
needs and infirmities, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent.
No wonder that speculative theologians of modern times
should be found asserting that the Lutheran Christ is an

' Both Dorner and Schneckenburger agree in holding that a real God-manhood,
pre-existent, and the cause of the humanity whose existence began with the con-
ception, was the logical consequence of the Lutheran theory. Dorner, however,
finds fault with Schneckenburger for not recognising that, in point of fact, the
Lutheran theologians did not teach such a pre-existent humanity. "The actual
doctrine," he says, " of the old dogmatics is one thing, the conchision which may
be drawn from it another. In this respect we have also conceded that the most
strictly logical form of Lutheran Christology must be driven to the assumption of .1
pre-existent majesty." I do not suppose Schneckenburger meant to say anything
more than this. See Dorner, Person of Christ, IL ii. 292-297, and 431-435. And
Schneckenburger, ziir Kirchlichen Christologie, pp. 20, 21; also Vergleich, ndi
Darstelliing, ii. 208.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 1 1 5

ideal, not a historical person/ and imagining themselves
the children of Luther, and the true representatives of his
Christological tendency, when they teach a Pantheistic
doctrine in which Incarnation means the eternal identity of
the divine and the human realizing itself, not in Christ in
particular, but in humanity at large; the krypsis being the
condition of the finite spirit, which in its earthly mode of ex-
istence is no longer conscious of what it has itself produced,
as the absolute organizing reason of the world. The old
Lutherans were not Pantheists, nor did they look on the
historical Christ as an ordinary man; but their Christology
was undoubtedly of such a character, as to make it possi-
ble for modern Pantheistic Christologies to lay claims to
orthodoxy with a show of plausibility.^

PART II. — THE REFORMED CHRISTOLOGY.

In passing from the Lutheran to the Reformed Christol-
ogy, we encounter a markedly difterent manner of regard-
ing the person of Christ. The two Christologies are
distinguished by certain broad features, recognisable at a
glance. While the Christology of the Lutheran Church
emphasizes the viajesty of Christ's humanity, that of the
Reformed confession insists on its reality. The very titles
of the treatises which emanated from the two schools reveal
their respective tendencies. The Lutheran wrote, con
amove, books treating of the divine majesty of Christ; ' the
Reformed chose for his congenial theme, the verity of the
human nature of Christ.* The whole subject in dispute was
looked at by the adherents of the two confessions from
different points of view. The Lutheran formed his idea

' Vid. Weisse, Die Christologie Luther's, und die Chrislologische Aufgabe
der EvangeUschen Theologie, p. 79 ff., also p. 219.

2 On the inner relations between the old Lutheran Christology and modem
speculative Christology, some striking observations are made by Schneckenburger
in his Vergleichende Darstellimg. See Appendix, Note C.

3 De Divina Majestate Christi. Brentz and Thummius wrote treatises with
this title.

•« De Veritate hmnanae naturae Christi. This is a title of a work by SadeeL

1 1 6 TJie Humiliatioii of Christ.

of Christ from the state of exaltation, as the abiding- form
of His existence; regarding the state of humiliation as
something transient, accidental, economical, not in ac-
cordance with the idea, and requiring to be reconciled with
it in the best way possible. The Reformed, on the other
hand, formed his idea of Christ from the state of humilia-
tion, as that concerning which most is known, and which
it most concerns us to know, and which, being known, pre-
pares us for understanding the subsequent state of exalta-
tion. For him the state of exinanition was not, as for the
Lutheran, a strange perplexing thing, as unaccountable as
it was undeniable; but rather a thing of course, the natural
result of an Incarnation which was itself an act of divine
condescension. In the Reformed view. Incarnation and ex-
inanition were practically one. It was not denied, indeed,
that the two things are distinguishable in idea, even that
the Incarnation might conceivably have taken place in a
manner which should have ushered in at once a state of
exaltation; ^ but it was held that the idea of Incarnation
did not demand an immediate or necessary exaltation; that
it was compatible with either state; that it settled nothing
as to the mode; that God could be as truly incarnate in a
state of humiliation as in a state of exaltation; and that the
end of the Incarnation being kept in view, the way of hu-
mility was the only one open. From these points of differ-

1 Heidegger, e. g., says: In nativitate qua coepit esse in similitudine hominis,
imo et conceptione ipsa, licet exinanitus Christus fuerit, non tamen exinanitio
proprie in tvda/jKoodei, ivavOpooTTj^dsi, incarnatio>te ejus consistit. Nam sim-
pliciter hominem fieri, in similitudine hominis esse, non est exinaniri, humiliari.
Qui exinaniri debuit, homo esse debuit; sed non quisquis homo est, exinaniri debet.
Nam etiam in statu exaltationis mansit homo; neque tamen vel exinanitus vel
humiliatus amplius. Et exinanitus, minoratus est 0J?f3> fip(^X^ ^^ paulisper, ad
breve tempus. Sed homo fuit non paulisper, nee ad breve tempus; sed inde a
nativitate semper fuit, est, et erit. Potuit igitur esse homo, et non exinaniri, sed
esse L6iX &£(2. instar Dei. Ideo S. Paithts, Phil. ii. 7, eas phrases yEvedBai kv
o/noianiarj dvOpoonoov, esse in similitudine hominum, et i^iopcpijv 8o-dXox>
XafifAV, 6xVf^a.T^' evpiouEdOai coi arOpooTCov, servi formam accipere, habilu
inveniri ut hominem, diligenter distinguil, innuens non prius, sed duo haec poste-
riora exinanitionem dicere ... In eo ergo exinanitio Christi hominis consistit,
quod non simpliciter homofactus; sed ejusmodi homofactus est, ut /.iofj(p7}v dov-
iov habucrit, et (j;(;///<ari ut homo repertus fuerit. Corpus Theologiae, locus
xviii. cc. iv. v. See on the Reformed doctrine on this point, Ebrard, Dogmatik,
ii. 208.

Ltithcran and Reformed Christologics. 117

ence it followed, of course, that the two Christologies
should be discriminated in two other respects, viz., that
while the Lutheran was speculative in tendency, and theo-
logical in its general character, the Reformed, on the other
hand, was under the influence of the historical spirit, and
of an anthropological bias. The advocates of the Lutheran
theory believed many things about Christ which were not
verifiable or historically attested truths, but simply a priori
deductions from a preconceived idea of Christ's person, as
constituted by the union of the divine and human natures.
The Reformed doctors, on the contrary, adhered rigidly to
the facts of the gospel history, and refused to draw any
speculative inferences from the doctrine of Incarnation.
And their hearts were at home in these sober, humble facts.
It was not an offence to them that in Christ the man was
more apparent than the God, that behind the veil of flesh
Deity hid itself They accepted the occultation as an unde-
niable truth; nay, they gloried in it. For, while profoundly
convinced that in Christ God became man, they were, if
possible, more intensely interested in what God had become,
than in what the Incarnate One eontimied to be. They
made much of Christ's consubstantiality with men: " In all
things like His brethren, sin excepted," was their watch-
word; the man Christ Jesus, true God, yet emphatically
man, was their hope and consolation.

Among the Reformed theologians no such wide diversity
of opinion existed, on the subject of Christ's person, as are
found to prevail among the Lutherans. The Reformed
Christology is a self-consistent scheme, taught with much
uniformity by all the theologians of the Calvinistic confes-
sion; the only difference perceptible consisting in the more
or less complete working out of common principles. We
might therefore take any well-known divine as our guide in
the exposition of this theory. It will be best, however, to
select, as the type and standard of Reformed opinion, a
work written at the period when the antagonistic theory
took definite shape in an ecclesiastical symbol, and designed
to be a formal reply to that theory, as embodied in sym-
bolic documents. I refer to a treatise I have already had
occasion to quote, the Admonitio Christiana, usually desig-

1 1 8 The HiLiniliation of Christ,

nated from the place where it was first published in 1581,
Adjiioiiitio Ncostadtiensis, in which the views of the Re-
formed on the disputed subjects of the person of Christ
and the presence in the Supper are stated and defended, in
opposition to those set forth in the Formula of Concord,
in a full, lucid, learned, and dignified manner/

In this important work the Reformed doctrine concerning
the person of Christ is briefly repeated to the following
effect.'^ The eternal counsel of God for man's salvation de-
manded that the eternal Son of God should become Media-
tor and victim, reconciling us to the Father, and regenera-
ting us into sons of God by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He
assumed into the unity of His person a nature truly human,
consisting of a rational soul and a human body, formed and
sanctified by the. power of His own Spirit in the womb of
the Virgin, of the substance of His mother, joining and
coupling it to Himself not only inseparably, but also by a
secret and inscrutable vinciilmn in a most intimate and in-
effable manner, so that the eternal Logos or Son of God,
and this mass of the nature assumed, are at the same time
the substance of the one person of Christ, who, one and
the same, is true Son of God and true Son of man, true God
and true man, born from eternity of the Father, and in time
of the Virgin. In virtue of this union, divinity is not in
Christ as in all creatures for their conservation and govern-
ment; nor does it dwell in Him as in saints, making them
conformable to Himself by grace and His own Spirit, but
the Logos so inhabits and bears, moves and vivifies this
His own flesh, that with it, once for all assumed into the
unity of one person with Himself, He remains the hypos-
tasis of one and the same person of Christ, as soul and body
are so united by a secret inexplicable nexus that they are
substantial parts of one man, and the body would perish
unless it were so borne by the soul; indeed, the Logos co-

' The full title of this book is, De Libra Concordiae qtiem vacant, a qiiibiisdani
llieologis, nomine qtioriindam Ordinttm Aiigiistanae Confessionis edito, Adiiio-
nitio Christiana, scripta et approbata a Theologis et ministris ecclesiariun in
ditione illitstrissimi Principis lohannis Casimiri Palatini ad Rhemivt Bavariae
Duels,, etc. Zachary Ursinus was the principal author of this book, and it is in-
cluded in his works published at Heidelberg in three vols, in i6l2,

* Caput i. Ue persona Christi, verae doctrinae repetitio.

Lutheran and Reformed CJiristologies. irg

heres with His flesh more closely than the soul with the
body, so that even when His soul was separated from His
body by death, He was not separated from either. On the
other hand, while thus closely united, the natures are not
changed or mixed or confused, but remain distinct while
united, and retain their respective essential properties.
Hence in the one person there is a twofold substance, es-
.sence, or nature; one divine, uncreated, creating, sustain-
ing, and vivifying the other, spiritual, uncircumscribed, and
always existing everywhere the same and whole; the other
human, created, sustained, and vivified by the former, finite,
corporeal, circumscribed by quantity and definite figure,
having part beyond part, and existing only in one place at
one time. Also a twofold mind or intellect; one divine
and increate, knowing all things past, present, future, pos-
sible, impossible, from eternity to eternity, by itself, in one
unchangeable act or intuition, and the fountain of all crea-
turely intelligence; the other human, created, knowing and
contemplating all things which it wishes to know, and when
it wishes, through the divine mind united to it; able to per-
ceive all sensible things by diverse, distinct acts of sensa-
tion and perception. Also a twofold will and operation;
the one divine and increate, performing whatever it wishes,
volens ct nolens, from eternity, immutably and in His own
time, exciting the other and governing it at pleasure, as a
part acting on another part of the one entire perfect Christ,
the first cause of all His actions; the other human and cre-
ated, ever agreeing with the divine, depending on it, will-
ing and doing by its guidance whatever is its proper func-
tion. Also a twofold wisdom, strength, and virtue, one
divine, increate, being the unique, total, most simple, infin-
ite, and immutable essence of Deity; the other, human and
created by the divine, itself neither the essence of Deity
nor of humanity, nor even a thing subsisting by itself, but
a quality and property produced in the human nature by
the Logos through His own Spirit, and inhering therein as
in its own subject, which grew in Christ humbled with His
age, and in Christ glorified arrived at perfection; yet, while
surpassing the gifts, comprehension, and intelligence of all
men and angels, is nevertheless finite in the divine view,

I20 The Humiliation of Christ.

and can never be equal to the essential wisdom, power,
and virtue of God; the finite to the infinite, the creature to
the creator.

In virtue of this union, whatever is said of Christ is s^id
truly and really of His whole undivided person, sometimes
in respect of both natures, sometimes in respect of one or
other. The former, when the predicate has reference to
Christ's office; He being Mediator, Redeemer, Intercessor,
King-, Priest, Prophet, in respect both to His Deity and to
His humanity, and each nature performing its proper part
in all official acts; the latter, when the predicate has refer-
ence to a peculiar property or operation of one of the na-
tures. Thus it can be said that God was born, died, rose,
ascended, but only in respect to the human nature of Christ;
and again, that the man Christ Jesus is omnipotent, om-
niscient, omnipresent, in virtue, not of His humanity, but
of His divinity. Yet in both cases the predication is not
merely verbal, but real, in consequence of the union. It is
the union which makes it proper to say, in the case of Christ,
God suffered, the man Jesus is omniscient; while it would
be improper to say, in the case of the Baptist, God suffered
because he suffered, or the Baptist was omnipresent because
God dwelt within him as well as without him.

As to the distinction between the two states of humilia-
tion and exaltation, it has a bearing on the properties of
both natures, but in very different ways. With reference
to the properties of the divine nature, it is a distinction
simply between partial concealment and open manifesta-
tion. Christ in the state of humiliation had these proper-
ties not less than He has them now in glory; for they are
His eternal and immutable divinity itself. He was then as
omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, as to His divini-
ty, as now. But He did not manifest these properties then
as nozv. He concealed His divinity in the state of exina-
nition, and revealed it only in a modified manner, and so
far as was needful for the office of that time. With refer-
ence to the properties of the human nature, on the other
hand, the distinction between the states is more radical,
implying for the state of exaltation the loss of some acci-
dental properties possessed in the state of humiliation, the

Lutheran and Reformed Chrzstologies. 121

perfected development of others, and the retention of the
essential properties. The accidental properties left behind
by Christ, when He entered into glory, are the physical
and mental infirmities which He assumed with humanity —
liability to hunger, thirst, fatigue, grief, suffering, death,
and ignorance. The properties in which He was perfected,
also accidental, that is, not inseparable from the idea of
human nature, are those of glory and majesty, as strength,
agility, incorruptibility, brightness, wisdom, gladness, vir-
tue. These Christ had in the state of humiliation, as far
as was needful for His perfect purity and sanctity, and for
the discharge of His office on earth; but in the state of exr
altation He received such increase thereof, that, in the
number and degree of His gifts. He far excels not only the
highest excellence of angels and men, but even His own
attainments in the days, of His flesh.

I. In the foregoing condensed statement, the leading pe-
culiarities of the Reformed Christology, as opposed to the
Lutheran, are clearly though briefly indicated. The first
outstanding point calling for remark is the idea of the tinion.
The Lutherans were accustomed to say that, according to
the Reformed conception of the union, the two natures
were simply glued together like two boards, without any
real communion. It must be confessed that, at first sight,
the Reformed theory of the person of Christ does give this
impression. The two natures stand out so distinctly, as to
seem two altogether separate things, tied together by the
slender thread of the divine Ego. From the nature of the
case, the tendency on the side of those who opposed the
Lutheran doctrine of communication was, to carry the as-
sertion of the distinctness of natures as far as was compati-
ble with recognition of the unity of the person. This ten-
dency is apparent in the strong, bold assertion by the
author of the Admonitio o{ z gemina substantia, gemina me?is,
gemina sapientia robur et virtus; its influence is traceable
also in the language they employ to describe the act of
union, the Son of God being represented as joining and
coupling the human nalure to Himself by a secret and in-
scrutable vinculiini. This outwardness in the Reformed
mode of conceiving the union became still more marked as

122 The Humiliation of Christ.

time went on. Van Mastricht, for example, explains the
iiature of the hypostatic union in these terms: " It is noth-
ing else than a certain ineffable relation of the divine per-
son (in Christ) to the human nature, by which this human
nature is peculiarly the human nature of the second person
of the Deity."' In this rather vague and unsatisfactory ex-
planation, which in truth explains nothing, there comes
out, by the way, another characteristic of the Reformed
style of thought, due to the same tendency to keep as far
apart as possible the two natures in Christ. Van Mastricht
speaks of a certain ineffable relation of the divine person to
the human nature; herein following the example of Aqui-
nas, who, as we have seen,^ taught that in the Incarnation,
not the divine nature, but the person only of the Logos be-
came man. The preference of this mode of conceiving the
Incarnation, though common among the Reformed theo-
logians, is not clearly marked in the Admonitio.

2. The authors of that historical document were, indeed,
very far from wishing to make the union of the natures a
merely nominal and formal thing. They earnestly believed
in a communion of the natures, and did what they could to
make that communion a reality. The means they adopted
for that end are the second point which invites our atten-
tion. These were, on the one hand, the ascription to
the Son of God, in virtue of the personal union, of partici-
pation in the sufferings of His humanity; and, on the other
hand, the doctrine adopted from Aquinas, of the communi-
cation oi charisms to the human nature, fitting it to be the
companion, so to speak, and organ of Deity. Both of these
media of communion are briefly hinted at in the Repetitio,
and enlarged on in subsequent parts of the Admonitio.
God, it is stated, is truly said to suffer, because the suffering
humanity is the proper humanity of God. More light is
thrown on the point further on in the book, where, in reply
to the Lutheran charge of teaching that in the passion of
Christ the Son of God had no concern, reference is made

• Theologia theoretico-pradica, lib. v. cap. iv. sec. vii.: Ineffabilis quaedam
relatio divinae personae ad humanam natiiram, per quam haec humana natura
peculiariter est humana natura secundae personae Deitatis,

2 Vid. Lecture ii. p. 73.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 123

to the exclamation of the exalted Saviour, " Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me ! " and an argument a fortiori is
drawn from the suffering by sympathy implied in the
words, to a still more real participation in His own suffer-
ing.* The part performed by the divine nature in the
passion is more exactly defined elsewhere thus: " The
human nature suffers and dies innocently, and becomes a
victim for sin, willing this obedience; the divine nature
also wills this obedience, and conceals its power and
glory, not repelling from the human nature death and
ignominy, yet sustains that nature in torment, seriously
desires that the eternal Father may receive us into His
favour on account of this victim, and adds such dignity to
the victim which He offers to the Father, that it is a suffi-
cient ransom and price for the sins of the whole world." ^
These determinations go a certain length in helping us to
understand the mystery of divine suffering, but perhaps
the hint at suffering by sympathy is of more value than
them all. It reminds us of a truth we are apt to lose sight
of in our abstruse discussions, viz. that the divine and
human natures, though metaphysically wide apart, are
morally of kin, and that therefore, though the Divine
Spirit cannot, as indeed the human spirit also cannot,
suffer ///;/.?/<:«/ pain, it can suffer all that holy love is capa-
ble of enduring. The infinite mind can suffer in the same
way as the sinless finite mind; it can have sorrow in
common with the latter, as well as wisdom, knowledge,
and virtue; and if there be any difference between divine
and human sorrow, it is a difference of the same kind as
that which obtains with reference to the last-named attri-
butes. The authors of the Admonitio recognise the truth
that in some attributes Deity and humanity stand related
as archetype and image, wisdom and virtue being included
among the number; and with reference to those attributes,
it makes the distinction of natures one mainly of degree,
divine wisdom and virtue being infinite, while human
wisdom and virtue, however great, are limited. Is it a
heresy to include among the common attributes of Deity

' Admonitio, caput iii. (Dilutio accusationis falsae) sec. vi.
* Ibid, sec. v.

124 ^^^ Humiliation of Christ.

and humanity a capacity of sorrow on account of sin,
and to say that Deity differs from humanity only in posses-
sing an infinitely greater capacity ? If so, then what does
Scripture mean when it speaks of the Divine Spirit being
vexed and grieved ? what are we to understand by Paul's
rapturous language about the height and depth, and length
and breadth of divine love ?

On the communication of charisms to the humanity of
Christ, the Reformed theologians laid great stress; it was
their equivalent or substitute for the Lutheran communica-
tion of divine properties, and they carried it as far as the
axiom finitiini non capax infiniti would permit. The au-
thors of the Admonitio had this doctrine in view, when in
their repetition they spoke of the wisdom and virtue of the
humanity of Christ, as qualities wrought in that nature by
the Logos through His Spirit. In answering the Lutheran
charge of degrading the hypostatic union into a mere con-
gl7itinatio7i, they return to the topic and enter a little more
into detail. " Divinity," they say, " communicated to the
humanity this highest dignity, that it is the flesh of the
Son of God; He conferred on it all celestial gifts which can
be bestowed on human nature in the highest degree; He
communicated to it fellowship in the office of Mediator,
Head of the Church, Governor and Judge of the whole
world. He communicated to it fellowship in one honour and
adoration with the Logos."'

It is easy to see what attractions, beyond the merely
controversial advantage of enabling them to defend them-
selves against the invidious accusations of their opponents,
this doctrine must have had for theologians of the Reformed
tendency. One leading recommendation of it was, that in
representing the man Jesus as the recipient of communi-
cated gifts and graces, it helped to extend and establish
the highly valued doctrine of the homousia, the practically
precious truth that Christ was in all respects like unto His
brethren; the Head of the Church like the members. Like
them in the constituent elements of His human nature, in
subjection to sinless infirmities, in exposure to temptation,
He was like them further even in this, that He was fitted

, ' Caput iii. sec. ii.

Lutheran and Reformed CJiristologics. \ih

for the duties of His office by the influences of the Holy
Spirit; unlike only in the degree in which these influences
were vouchsafed, the Spirit being poured out on Him alone
without measure. Looked at from this point of view, the
communication of charisms is undoubtedly a doctrine of
real importance; and by giving it prominence in their
Christological scheme, the Reformed theologians did good
service to the Church. But, while of undoubted religions
value, this doctrine is somewhat embarrassing theoretically,
inasmuch as it seems difficult to adjust its relations to the
personal union. The questions occur: Why should not the
graces with which the soul of Jesus was enriched be the
direct result of the union of the Logos to the humanity;
why this roundabout way of communicating spiritual gifts
through the Holy Ghost; does not this form of representa-
tion tend to make the union of the natures still more
external — in fact, to make the divine factor in the union
superfluous, and so land us in a purely human personality.''
In connection with these questions it is important to notice
the way in which the Admonitio puts the matter. It speaks
of the wisdom and virtue of the man Jesus as a quality
wrought in His human nature by tJie Logos through His oivn
spii'it. This phrase, "by the Logos through His own
spirit," unites two points of view which were often disjoined
by Reformed theologians, some preferring the one, some
the other; and suggests a method of dovetailing the doc-
trine of the communication of charisms into the doctrine
of the personal union. The spirit, whose gracious influ-
ences were poured into the soul of Christ, was the spirit
proceeding from the Logos, His own spirit communicated
freely by Himself; and the doctrine that the Logos worked
on the humanity of Christ through His spirit, may be taken
to mean that the influence of the Logos on the human
nature was not physical but moral, not the immediate and
necessary effect of the union of natures, but the free, ethi-
cally mediated action of the one on the other.^ This is a

' So Schneckenburger, Vcrgleichcnde Darstellimg, ii. 239, 240: So wenig war
die anio personalis imd der darin gesetzte Einfluss des Logos auf die menschliche
Seele eine die nalCirliche siindlose Schwiiche aufhebende Gevvalt wider deren Ent-
wickelung und Lebensverlauf als einen wahrhaft menschlichen (Ihat, according to

126 The Humiliation of ChHst.

principle of great importance in its bearing both on the
nature of the union and on the course of Christ's human
life on earth.

3. A third prominent feature in the Reformed Christology
is its doctrine of exinanition. Unlike the Lutherans, the
Reformed theologians applied the category of exinanition
to the divine nature of Christ. It was the Son of God who
emptied Himself, and He did this in becoming man. The
Incarnation itself, in the actual form in which it took place,
was a kenosis for Him who was in the form of God before
He took the form of a servant. But the kenosis or ex-
inanitio was only quasi, an emptying as to use and mani-
festation, not as to possession, a hiding of divine glory and
of divine attributes, not a self-deiiudation v^lih respect to
these. The standing phrase for the kenosis was occnltatio,
and the favourite illustration the obscuration of the sun by
a dense cloud. Zanchius, for example, says: "Under the
form of a servant the form of God was so hid that it scarcely
appeared any longer to exist, as is also the light of the sun
when it is covered by a very dense cloud; for who would
not then say that the sun had laid aside all his light, and
denuded himself of his splendour .-' " ^ But the question
here suggests itself, How is this occultation to be understood .''
Does it signify merely that the manifestation of the divine
attributes of the Logos was hid from the view of the world,
or does it mean that there was also a suspension of their
exercise for Christ Himself; in such a way, for example, that
the omniscience of the Logos was practically non-existent
for the man, not intruding itself into His human conscious-
ness .'' On this topic the Reformed theologians were very
reserved, insomuch that Schneckenburger, who was well
acquainted with the literature of the subject, expresses
himself doubtfully as to the import of the gemina mens.

.Calvin and Hulsius, Christ could even forget in a moment of mental anxiety what
*'He previously knew). Schneckenburger continues: Die influentia war nicht phys-
' ica, sondern moralis, quae a voluntate pendet. Die voluntas des Logos war aber
die, der rein menschlichen Lebensentwickelung und Lebensbethatigung Raum zu
geben. (The influence was not physical but moral, depending on the will; but
the will of the Logos was to give room for a purely human development and
activity.)

' De Incarnatione, lib. i. p. 34.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologics. 127

As I shall have occasion to refer to the views of this
scholar in the next lecture, in enumerating the various
attempts which have been made in recent times to reconcile
the divinity of Christ with the reality of His human life as
unfolded in the gospel history, I may here quote what he
says on the point. " It is very questionable," he remarks,
" whether according to the logic of the (Reformed) the-
ory the time-conditioned consciousness of the God-man and
the eternal self-consciousness of the second person of the
Trinity are required to meet in the divine-human subject,
developing Himself in time. The matter probably stands
thus: That instead of the Lutheran division of the human
nature into its illocal and local subsistence, a distinction is
to be made in the life of the divine, according to which the
mens duplex is to be distributed between the Logos, as a
person of the Trinity, and the concrete God-man in so
far as that person reveals and develops Himself in Jesus
after a human fashion, that is, as a human individual. The
Logos totiis extra Jesmn is the second person of the Trinity
as such, with the scientia personalis; the Logos tottis in Jesu
is the same all-pervading and animating divine hypostasis,
as the life principle of this individual, the God-man, whose
individual consciousness is not absolutely all-embracing." '
According to this view the Logos had a double life^ one un-
affected by the Incarnation, another in the man Christ
Jesus, in which His action is so self-controlled as to leave
room for a natural human development involving growth in
stature, wisdom, and grace. Traces of such a view maybe
found in Reformed authors, in reference to divine power.
Zanchius speaks of the kenosis as involving not merely an

' Voin doppelteji Stande Christi. To the same effect in VergleichendeDarstel-
lung, ii. p. 198, in disposing of three objections brought against Reformed Chris-
tology by modern writers: that it allows the dualism of the two natures to remain
unresolved, that it posits a double series of parallel states of consciousness in the
God-man, and that its doctrinal point of view is purely traditional. To the last
Schneckenburger replies by pointing to the communication of charisms, and the
action of the Holy Ghost as the bond of union as fresh contributions to the doc-
trine; to the first, by admitting the charge as inevitable; to the second, by repeat-
ing the view given in the above extract, assigning the scientia personalis to the
Logos per se, and the scientia habitualis to the Logos incarnate, or to Jesus in
whom the Logos became incarnate.

128 The Humiliation of Christ.

occultation of divine glory, but a withholding of divine
omnipotence in Christ, supporting his view by a reference
to the Ambrosian doctrine of retractio;'^ and Heidegger
and Maastricht combine the idea of restraining or withdraw-
ing with that of concealing, in their representation of the
effect of the Incarnation on Christ's glory.^ That no such
statements occur in reference to omniscience, may be due
to the felt difficulty of conceiving the application of the
idea expressed by retentio to that attribute. Silence must
not therefore be construed into a denial of its applicability.
Rather ought regard to be had to other elements in the
Reformed theory which seem to demand exclusion of
omniscience from the consciousness of the man Christ
Jesus. Such an element is the ignorance which the leading
Reformed authorities do not hesitate to ascribe to Christ
on earth. That ignorance they regard as real, not, like
Cyril, apparent only or feigned. But how can it be real if
the gemina mens means two series of parallel states of con-
sciousness .'' It is as hard to conceive of two such series
keeping apart and having no communication with each
other, as to conceive of two rivers flowing in the same
channel without mixing their waters. Yet keep apart they
must, if the ignorance is to be real, and, it may be added,
if the Reformed theory is to be consistent with itself in
opposing the communication of attributes taught by the
Lutherans. For if the divine consciousness is to run into
the human, so that the supposed ignorance of Christ shall
simply mean that the knowledge He possessed in a partic-
ular case did not come to Him through His human nature,
what is this but the Lutheran communication — omniscience
communicated to the soul of Christ in virtue of its personal

' De Incarnatione, lib. i. p. 35: Ergo retentio suae virtutis et omnipotentiae in
ilia carne uivoadi'i et exinanitio appellatur, et ideo ait Ambrosius quod Xoyoi in
came potentiam suam et majestatem ab opere retraxit. The retentio, however,
was not absolute. Deitas in ilia carne non statim, non semper, non in omnilxiS;
non abunde sese exeruit, sed quasi otiosa mansit. This otiositas was the xsvooSii.
_P. 36.

' Heide8;ger, Corpus Theologiae Chrir.ianae, loc. xvui., De Statu Jesu Christi:
"gloriam suam . . . ad tempus occultavit, et c^///(5//?V." Mastricht associates the
word siihducere with the verb occiiltare. Thcol. Thcoret. Pract. lib. v. cap. ix.
Pars exeget.

Lutheran and Refoinned CJwistologics. 129

union with the Logos. On the whole, then, having regard
to the ascription by the Reformed to Christ of real ignor-
ance in childhood and even in manhood, to their concep-
tion of the union as mediated through the Holy Spirit, to
their determined antagonism to the Lutheran communica-
tion, and to their well-known formula: " The whole Logos
beyond Jesus, the whole Logos in Jesus," — there does seem
reason to think that the distinguished modern theologian
just quoted has correctly interpreted the bearing of the
Reformed theory on the point in question.^ The concep-
tion of a double life of the Logos is certainly a difficult one;
to some it may even seem absurd or impossible. Yet the
idea has commended itself to men distinguished both for
their ability and for their theological independence, includ-
ing a well-known and highly esteemed English essayist,
who, in grappling with the problem of the reconciliation of
Christ's divinity with the reality of His humanity, says: " If
there be an indestructible moral individuality which con-
stitutes self, which is the same when wielding the largest
powers and when it sits alone at the dark centre, — which
for anything- 1 know may even live under a double set of con-
ditions at the same time, — I can see no metaphysical
contradiction in the Incarnation." ^

4. The last outstanding feature of the Reformed Chris-
tology remaining to be noticed, is the emphasis with which
it asserts the likeness of Christ's humanity in all respects,
sin excepted, to that of other men. Zeal for this truth,
Schneckenburger justly remarks, is the distinctively Re-
formed interest in Christology.^ Not merely on theoretical
but on religious grounds, the upholders of the Reformed
theory of Christ's person were determined that the Saviour
should be a true Son of man, our Brother and Head; and
hence " a decided antidoketic realism " pervades their whole
method of treating Christological subjects.* The influence

' Schweitzer {Die Glanbenslehre des Evangelischen Reformirten Kirche Dar-
gestellt wid mis dcr Qnellen belegt) takes the same view as Schneclcenburger; vid.
Appendix, Note D.

2 Essays Theological and Literary, by R. H. Hutton, vol. i. p. 260.

3 Vergleichcnde Darstelliing, ii. p. 229.

4 Vergleichende Darsfellung, ii. p. 229: Der entschiedenste antidoketische Re-
alismus beseelt die reformirte Betrachtungsweise.

130 The HiLmiliation of Christ.

of this motive is apparent in all the features of their system
of thought already referred to, as well as in other peculiar-
ities not yet mentioned; as, e.g., the representation of Christ,
as man, as the subject of predestination, and as personally
bound to obedience, and the analogy drawn between the
Incarnation and regeneration, the union of the natures in
Christ, and the mj'^stical union- of the believer to Christ,
both being accomplished by the agency of the Holy Ghost.
It may be observed, however, that the doctrine of the
homoilsia was not by any means so fully worked out in the
early period as it came to be afterwards in the course of
the 17th century. Some of the Reformed divines who lived
near the time of the Reformation seem to have been half
unconscious of the genius and tendency of their own theory,
their views being by no means self-consistent or homoge-
neous. This remark applies very specially to Zanchius, who
while teaching the Reformed doctrine concerning Christ's
person in opposition to the Lutheran, nevertheless adopted
almost in their entirety the views of Aquinas concerning the
knowledge of Christ's soul and other topics; so making
Christ's humanity every whit as unreal as it was in the
Brentian system. The soul of Jesus, we are told, possessed
in perfection from the first the vision of all things in God.
Possessing this, it did not and could not possess faith as
the evidence of things not seen, nor hope which rests on
faith; for what a man sees he doth not hope for. That is
to say, the man Christ Jesus, while represented as the
recipient of all manner of gifts and graces, is yet declared
to have been rendered by the hypostatic union incapable
of exercising two of the cardinal graces — incapable of
brotherhood with us in the faith which says: " I will put
my trust in Him," and in the hope which cheers the soul
under present tribulation, — h^\x\^-d,compreJicnsor ^v^n while
a viator, and therefore a pilgrim and a stranger on the
earth only in outward guise ! ^ How widely different from

' De Incarnatione, lib. ii. quaestiones viii. xi. Le Blanc (Posthuma opusctda,
cap. iii. p. igi) adverts to the different opinions among the Reformed de Scientia
Animae Christi, and gives an account of those held by Zanchius in particular as
peculiar to him and a few others. He underestimates the importance of the ques-
tion when he calls it merely scholastic: " Quaestiones sunt nicic scholasticae. "

Ltitheran and Reformed Christologies. 131

these views those taught a century later by Hulsius, who
represented Christ as like us in all respects save sin, and
therefore in imperfection of knowledge which is not neces-
sarily sinful; declared the happiness of Christ on earth to
have been imperfect not less than His knowledge — being
the felicity of one v/ho was only a wayfarer to the blessed
country {viator'), not that of one who has arrived at the end
of his journey, and at last attained possession of the object
of his hope {coinprehensor')\ nay, not even the felicity of
Adam in paradise, such felicity being incompatible with
His mediatorial office, which required Him to bear the
guilt and to taste the misery of sinners. This Dutch divine,
according to the account given of his views by Schnecken-
burger, held that Christ's work as Saviour demanded that
both His ignorance and His unhappiness should be most
real, and he protested against any inferences being drawn
from the hypostatic union prejudicial to their reality. The
union must be so conceived of as to allow full validity to
the " form of a servant." The prayer, " let this cup pass,"
and the natural fear out of which it sprang, must not be
rendered a theatrical display by the overpowering physical
influence of the divine nature upon the human. Rather
than admit the agony and the fear in the garden to have
been unreal, one may dare to say that, under the influence
of extreme perturbation of mind, Christ for the moment
forgot the divine decree under which He was appointed, by
death to become the Saviour of sinners. Such forgetfulness,
according to Hulsius, was not impossible. The knowledge
of a decree as to habit is one thing, the actual conscious
recollection of that knowledge is another thing; the latter,
the vehemence of anxiety could take away, though not the
former. A bold assertion this, of the important role played
by Infirmity in the experience of Christ, which seems to
justify the commentary of Schneckenburger: " Therefore
even the heavenly decree, consequently His personal voca-
tion, consequently His personal being. His esse divimwi.
His iinio personalis, could the God-man in such moments
forget; the act of cognition could cease, though not the
habit (that is, the act could not so cease that it could not
be forthwith restored). So little was the personal union,

132 The Hitmiliation of Christ.

and the thence resulting influence of the Logos upon the
human soul, a power annulling natural, sinless weakness,
and antagonistic to a truly human development and life
course. The influence was not physical, but moral, depend-
ing on the will of the Logos, which was minded to leave
room for such a development." ^ But whether we be suc-
cessful or not in reconciling the thorough reality of Christ's
human nature and human experience with the doctrine that
that nature and that experience belonged in very truth to
the Son of God, there can be no doubt at all that we are
bound by Scripture teaching to assert both in the most un-
qualified manner, the reality of the humanity not less,
though of course not more, than the reality of the divinity.
As indicated in our seventh axiom, the humanity must be
allowed to be as real as if Christ had been a purely human

' The \vor\i oil\\i\?,\\\s [Systeuia Coittroversiartim Theologicariwt, Lugd. Bat.
1677) I have failed to get a perusal of. It seems to be scarce even in Germany,
for Ritschl in his Lehre von der Rechtfertigiing tmd Versuhmmg quotes him at
second hand, — a fact to which Professor R. Smith of Aberdeen directed my .atten-
tion. The above account of Hulsius' views is taken from Schnecl:enburger ( Ver-
gieichendc Darslelhiiig), who makes large use of this author in his chapter on the
Reformed doctrine of the Redeemer's hotnoi'isia with us. Ritschl doubts the accu-
racy of Schneckenburger's representation of the views of Hulsius on Justification,
and a certain amount of dubiety must attach to all statements which one has not
the means of verifying. As, however, Schneckenburger gives a number of ex-
tracts, there can be little doubt that his representation of the opinions taught by
Hulsius is substantially correct. These opinions seem to have been set forth in a
controversial writing against the Catholic theory on the " Scientia et beatitudo
comprehensorum." Among the extracts given by Schneckenburger are these (vol.
ii. pp. 237-240): Fuit nobis per omnia similis excepto peccato, ergo et quoad
imperfectionem scientiae nobis similis ... Id enim (beatitudo comprehensorum)
adversatur officio mediatorio, quo sponsoris persona in se pro peccatore suscipere
debuit reatum et poenam peccati, adeoque miseriam, cui peccatum obnoxium
reddit peccatorem ... To exclude inferences in favour of the Catholic theory,
from the Unio, it is said: Ab influentia physica ad moralem quae a voluntate pendet
non valet consequentia. Habuisse humanitatem Chrisli praerogativas magnas ex
unione hypostatica, sed inde inferri istam suramam beatitudinem non admittebat
forma servi . . . With reference to the agony: Per anxietatis vehementiam prae-
sentem memoriam illius decreti fuisse oblatam (oblitam ?). Aliud ergo est decreti
cognitio quoad habitum, aliud istius cognitionis actualis recordatio: banc poluit
tollere anxietatis vehementia, quoad momentum, illam non item. Schnecken-
burger represents Hulsius as inferring ignorance of the exact bearing of the decree
of election on individuals from Christ's tears shed over Jerusalem's impenitence.
Had Christ known for certain that the inhabitants were doomed to perdition, He
could not have earnestly wished to save them, or have wept because they would
would not be saved.

Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 133

personality; and on that account it is permissible to speak
of Him, as is freely done in the Gospels, as a human person,
while not forgetting that He is at the same time a divine
person/ If we find the reconciliation of the two aspects of
the personality a hard task, we must not think of simplify-
ing it by sacrificing some of the cardinal facts, least of all
those pertaining to the human side, which give to the life
of the Saviour all its poetry, and pathos, and moral power.
We must hold fast these facts, even if we should have to
regard the person of Christ as an inscrutable mystery —
scientifically an insoluble problem." Till the era of the
Reformation an opposite course was pursued. Believing in
Christ's divinity, theologians thought it necessary, in the
interest of faith, to reduce His humanity to a mere meta-
physical shell emptied of all moral significance. The Council
of Chalcedon had indeed said a word in behalf of the hu-
manity; but its formula remained for the most part a dead
letter. To the Reformed branch of the Protestant Church
belongs the honour of having asserted with due emphasis
the long neglected claims of the much-wronged human
nature. Sincerely confessing the Saviour's divinity, they
did not suffer their eyes to be so dazzled thereby that they
could not look the facts of the gospel plainly in the face.
To their mental views the sun was so obscured by the
dense cloud of the state of humiliation, that they could re-
gard the Incarnate One as He regarded Himself — as the Son
of man, the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. In
Him they found rest for their souls as theologians, and still
more as sinners.

' On the views of the Reformed on the subject of the human aspect of Christ's
personality, see Appendix, Note E.

" So Ritschl, Die Chrisiliche Lehre von der RecJitfertigung imd VcrsOhnung,
iii. p. 394.

LECTURE IV.

MODERN KENOTIC THEORIES.

During the last fifty years the minds of the learned in
Germany have been extensively and intensely exercised
upon theological problems. All the dogmas in the Chris-
tian creed have been in turn made the subject of searching-
critical inquiry; sometimes in a sceptical spirit and with
destructive intent, but much more frequently with a view
to the conservation of the faith, and the reconstruction of
the doctrinal system. The doctrine of our Lord's person
has received its full share of attention in this great move-
ment of modern religious thought; it has indeed been the
subject of a quite extraordinary interest due in part to its
intrinsic importance and attractiveness, but arising also in
no small measure out of the ecclesiastical movement which
had for its object the reunion of the two great branches
of the German Protestant Church. This union enterprise,
which commenced as early as the year 1817, naturally led
to a consideration of the ground of separation, either in a
spirit of antiquarian curiosity, or with the more serious
purpose of determining the practical question: what was
the intrinsic importance of the points of difference — were
they of such a nature that they might rightly be treated as
matters of forbearance, and therefore no barrier to church
fellowship, by men not occupying the position of theolog-
ical indifferentism .-• And so it came to pass, that the
scheme for bringing into closer relations the adherents
of the two confessions, while only partially successful in
attaining its avowed object, became the occasion of a most
fruitful activity of mind, on the subjects involved in the

Modern Kenotic Theories, 135

great controversy between the Lutheran and Reformed
churches. The tree of union flourished into a copious
Christological literature, many-sided in its aspects, genial
in tone, animated by a scientific truth-loving spirit, and of
value far surpassing that of the ephemeral controversial
writings, which similar movements in other lands have
called into existence.

Of this Christological literature the theories of the modern
kenotic school, of which some account is to be given in the
present lecture, form no insignificant part. The Christol-
ogy of kenosis in its origin and aim had a close connection
with the union movement: it offered itself to the world, in
fact, as a union Christology. Its advocates said in effect,
some of them said expressly: ^ We have studied the
Lutheran and the Reformed Christologies; we have made
ourselves thoroughly familiar with their respective positions,
and with the arguments by which these were defended; we
find both in their old forms untenable; but in this new, yet
most ancient scriptural doctrine of kenosis, we bring some-
thing different from either of the old Christologies, yet
having affinities with both, which therefore we hope will be
accepted by the members of the two communions as the
common doctrine of a reconstructed church. This claim to
a two-sided affinity, made in behalf of the kenotic theory,
has prima facie support in the fact that the theory numbers
among its adherents distinguished theologians belonging
to both confessions; and it does not altogether break down
on closer investigation. There are at least footpaths, if
not highways, along which one may advance to the kenosis,
both from Lutheran and from Reformed ground. You may

' Gaupp, e. g., who in his work, or pamphlet rather, entitled Die Union,
Breslau 1847, expounds the kenotic theory under the title of a Vermittehmgsver-
such, after having previously subjected both the Lutheran and the Reformed doc-
trines to a critical review in which their weak points are exposed. This little work
contains some interesting historical particulars concerning the union movement
from the year 1817 down to 1846, when the General Synod was held, at which a
formula of ordination was framed containing a summary of the fundamental doc-
trines of the sister churches. Gaupp charges this Ordinations -forinular with
intentional ambiguity designed to meet the case of persons who were in doubt
even about fundamentals, instancing the case of a comma after Gott dem Vater,
making it possible for opponents of the Church doctrine of the Trinity to appljr
the word " Gott " to the Father alone ! — P. 169,

136 The Humiliation of Christ.

reach the kenotic position from the Lutheran territory
along the path of the covnminicatio idioiuatiun, simpl}/ by
the inverse application of the principle; teaching with ref-
erence to the earthly state of Christ a communication of
human properties to God, instead of a communication of
divine properties to man. You may reach the same pos-
ition from the Reformed territory along the path of the
I'xinanitio, to which the Logos became subject in becoming
man, by assigning thereto a positive meaning, and convert-
ing the Reformed ocailtatio or qiiasi-exinanitio into a real
self-emptying of divine glory and divine attributes. These
hints may suffice to indicate in a general way the relation
of the modern theory to the older forms of the doctrine
current in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The
precise respects in which the new and the old modes of
thought agree or differ will become apparent as we proceed.
An exposition of the various kenotic theories of Christ's
person may be fitly introduced by the remark, that it is a
feature common to modern Christologists of all schools,
to insist with peculiar emphasis on the reality of our Lord's
humanity. It is admitted on all hands that every Christo-
logical theory must be reckoned a failure, which does not
faithfully reflect the historical image of Jesus as depicted
in the Gospels, and allow tlim to be as He appears there,
a veritable, though not a mere man. In this respect modern
Christology, under all its phases, follows the Reformed
rather than the Lutheran tendency. But this cordial and
earnest recognition of Christ's true and proper humanity
gives increased urgency to the question. How is the human-
ity to be reconciled with the divinity 1 Some have an-
swered the question by denying the Incarnation in the sense
of the creeds, and the doctrine of the Trinity on which it
rests, and representing Jesus as divine, simply inasmuch as
He was a perfect man, divinity and humanity being re-
garded as essentially one. Of the views of this school J
will give some account in the next Lecture, though they
are not very closely connected with our whole inquiry, the
very idea on which it is based being rejected by its mem-
bers. Our business at present is with those only who build
their Christology on the old foundations, and who set

Modern Kenotic Theories. 137

themselves the task of constructing a theory of Christ's
person according to which He shall be at once true God
and true man; or, to speak more exactly, with one section
of what may be called the modern orthodox party. For
those who have addressed themselves to the common prob-
•lem in a conservative spirit have not all followed the same
method in solving it. Three different solutions have been
suggested; one by Schneckenburger, consisting in a re-
statement, with explanations or modifications, of the old
Reformed theory; another by Dorner, who, in his great work
on the history of the doctrine, propounds or rather hints
the theory of a gradual Incarnation, leaving ample room
for a true normal human development, for which he claims the
valuable support of Luther's earlier Christological views;
the third solution being the kenotic theory, which seeks to
make the manhood of Christ real, by representing the
Logos as contracting Himself within human dimensions
and literally becoming man. It is this third solution which
is now to engage our attention.

The idea of kenosis in the modern sense, to be carefully
distinguished from the meaning attached to the term in
the old Giessen-Tiibingen controversy,^ seems to have been
first broached by Zinzendorf, the founder of the Moravian
Brotherhood. The grain of thought cast by him into the
ground lay dormant for a hundred years; then in the fourth
decade of the present century, it began to germinate, and
ever since it has gone on multiplying abundantly, till now
the kenotic school has attained considerable dimensions,
and can number its adherents among theologians by scores.
The forms which the new theory assumes in the hands of
its expounders are scarcely less numerous than the ex-
pounders themselves. It would probably be difficult to find
two writers who state the common doctrine in precisely
the same way. Happily, however, it is possible to reduce
the many diverse shapes of this Protean Christology to a
few leading types, which, though they may not compre-
hend all the subordinate phases of opinion, do at least fairly
and sufficiently represent the outstanding characteristics
of the school as a whole.

' See Appendix, Note B, Lect. iii.

8 The Hinniliation of Christ.

The dominant idea of the kenotic Christology is, that in
becoming incarnate, and in order to make the Incarnation
in its actual historical form possible, the eternal pre-existent
Logos reduced Himself to the rank and measures of human-
ity. But when this general idea has been announced, three
questions may be asked regarding it. First, is the depo-
tentiation relative or absolute ? that is to say, does it take
place simply so far as the Incarnation is concerned, leaving
the Logos /rr 5£' still in possession of His divine attributes;
or does it take place without restriction or qualification, so
that, pro tempore at least, from the moment of birth till the
moment of exaltation, the second person of the Trinity is
denuded of everything pertaining to Deity, but its bare,
naked, indestructible essence } Second, in what relation
does the depotentiated Logos stand to the man Jesus } Is
He the soul of the man, or is there a human soul in the
man over and above .'' Is the Logos metamorphosed into
.a human soul, or is He simply self-reduced to the dimensions
of a human soul, in order that, when placed side by side
with a human soul. He may not by His majesty consume
the latter, and render all its functions impossible .'' Third,
how far does the depotentiation or metamorphosis, as the
case may be, go, within the person of the Incarnate One }
is it partial, or is it complete .'' does it make Christ to all
inteints and purposes a mere man, or does it leave Him half
man, half God, — in some respects human, in other respects
superhuman 1 All these questions have been variously
answered by different writers. Some teach a relative
kenosis only^ some an absolute; some take a dualistic view
of the constitution of Christ's person, as formed by the
union of the ,depotentiated Logos, with a human nature
consisting of a true body and a reasonable soul; others re-
gard the person of Christ from a metamorphic point of
view, making the self-emptied Logos take the place of a
human soul. Finally, there are differences among the
kenotic Christologists as to the extent to which they carry
the kenosis, — some being Apollinaristic in tendency, though
careful to clear themselves from suspicion on that score;
others inclining to the humanistic extreme. Had each of
the possible combinatioiis of these three sets of alternatives

Modern Kenotic Theories. 139

its representative among the writers of this school, the
task before us would be formidable indeed. Fortunately,
however, we are not required by the history of opinion to
be mathematically complete in our exposition, but may
content ourselves with giving some account of fozir dis-
tinct kenotic types, which may for the present be intel-
ligibly, if not felicitously, discriminated as, (i) the absolute
diialistic type, (2) the absolute inetamorphic, (3) the abso-
lute senii-inetamorpJiic, and (4) the real but relative. Of
the first, Thomasius may conveniently be taken as the rep-
resentative; of the second, Gess; of the XSxvx^, Ebrard; and
of fourth, Martensen.

(i) TJiomasius^ the earliest advocate of the kenosis in
the present century, in setting forth his views, exhibits
great solicitude to clear himself of the charge of doctrinal
innovation. He claims to have the ecclesiastical consensus
on his side, and professes to be in sympathy both with the
patristic and with the old Lutheran Christology. He
recognises the Chalcedon Formula as fixing the limits
within which theories laying claim to orthodoxy must con-
fine themselves;^ and he regards his own theory as the
legitimate outcome of the fundamental principles on which
the Lutheran doctrine of Christ's person is based. He ad-
mits, of course, that the old Lutherans did not teach the
kenotic theory; but he holds that " the dialectic of the
dogma " inevitably leads thereto. The Lutheran con-
ception of the union of the natures demands one of two
things: either that the infinite should come down to the
finite, or that the finite should be raised to the infinite.'

' The statement of the views held by this author is based exclusively on the
work, Christi Person tind Werk, Erlangen 1856. Thomasius propounded his
theory in an earlier publication, entitled Beitrdge ziir Kirchlichen Christologie,
1845, being a reprint of articles which had previously appeared in the Zdtschrift
fur Protcstantisnms imd Kirche. The Beitrage is simply a brief rudimentary
.sketch of the scheme elaborated in the larger and later work.

2 Christi Person mid Werk, vol. ii. pp. 112-115.

3 The author quotes a passage from the writings of the Ttibingen theologians
who took part in the old kenotic controversy, to show that they had the two alter-
natives present to their minds: Ex necessitate consequitur, aut infinitam zov Aoyov
VTtodradiv ad finitam carnis praesentiam (ad fines humanae naturae) esse de-
tractam, aut humanam naturam assumptam ad infinitam vTtoCjradtv (ad majes-
tatem infinitatis et omnipraeser.tiae) evectam esse. Person ttnd Werk, ii. pp.
483, 484.

140 The Humiliatio7t of Christ.

The old Lutherans took the latter way, and found that it
let them into insuperable difficulties; therefore modern
Lutherans, who would be faithful to the first principles of
Christology taught by their fathers, must forsake the ancient
path of the majestas, and strike into the new path of the
kefiosis.

Our guide into the new way leads us along the following
line of thought. The life image of the Redeemer, as it lies
open to view in the Gospel, is that of a genuinely human

\ personality. Jesus is a man, the Son of man, and it seems
j as if the proper subject of this person were the human Ego.*
But, on the other hand, in these same Gospels Jesus appears
as more than man; He speaks of Himself as standing in a
peculiar relation to God; He is spoken of as having existed
personally before He appeared in the world, as the Logos
who was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God;
and in view of these facts it seems as if the Divine should
be regarded as the proper subject of this person.^ Yet
there are not two Egos in Christ, but only one, who is con-
scious at once of His premundane being in God, and of
His intramundane human existence, as both appertaining
to Himself. It is the same Ego who says of Himself, " Be-
fore Abraham was, I am," and, " I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world;" the same Ego of
whom it is written, that He is the absolute Truth, and that
He called on God with strong crying and tears.' Christ
having pre-existed as the Son of God before He became
man, the Ego of the Son of God is to be regarded as the
proper person-forming principle of the Incarnation. The
Incarnation itself is to be regarded in two lights, — as
the assumption by the Son of God of human nature
in its integrity,* and as the sclf-lijuitation of the Son
of God in the act of assuming human nature.^ The latter
is necessary in order to the former. Were there no self-
limitation, — did the Son of God, in the human nature as-

i sumed by Him, continue in His divine mode of being and
working, in His supramundane status, and in the infinitude

' Person und Werk, ii. pp. 14, 16. - Ibid. ii. p. 22.

3 Ibid. ii. p. 24. ■« Ibid. ii. p. 126.

» 3id. ii. p. 141.

Modern Kenotic Theories. 141

of His world-ruling, world-embracing government, the
mutual relation of the two united natures would involve a
certain duality. The divine would in that case embrace
the human, as a wider circle a narrower; with its knowledge,
life, and activity, the former would far outreach the latter;
the extra-historical, the temporal; the in-itself-complete,
that which is in process of becoming; the all filling, all
determining, that which is conditioned and bound down to
the limits and laws of earthly existence. The conscious-
ness of the Logos per se would not coincide with that of
the historical Christ, but would, as it were, hover over it;
the universal activity, which the former continues to exer-
cise, would not be covered by the theanthropic action of
the Incarnate One in the state of humiliation. That is to
say, there would be no true Incarnation.^ Therefore the
theanthropic person can be constituted only by God really
taking part in a human mode of existence, as to life and
consciousness: and the Incarnation must consist in this,
that the Son of God enters into the form of human finitude,
into an existence subject to the limits of space and time,
and to the conditions of a human development.^ That is,

' Person und Werk, ii. p. 141 : Bleibt namlich Er, der ewige Sohn Gottes, in
der endlichen von ihm assumirten, menschlichen Natur in seiner gOttlichen Seins-
und Wirkungsweise, beharrt er in seiner Uberweltliclien Weltstellung, in der Un-
bescliranktheit seines weltbeherrschenden und weltumfassenden VValtens, so bleibt
auch das gegenseitige Verhaltniss beider immer nocli mit einer gewissen Duplicitat
behaftet. Das GOttliche uberragt dann gleichsam das Menschliche wie ein weiter
Kreis den engern, es geht mit seinem Wissen, Leben, und Wiiken unendlich weit
dariiber hinaus, als das Aussergeschiclitliche iiber das Zeitliche, als das in sich
Vollendete ttber das Werdende, als das Allerfullende und Allesbestimmende iiber
dus Bedingte, an die Grentzen und Gesetze des irdischen Daseins Gebundene. Das
Kewusstsein, das der Sohn von sich und von seinem universalen Walten hat, fallt
mit dem des historischen Christus nicht in eins zusammen, — es schwebt gleichsam
tiber ihm; die universale Wirksamkeit, welche jener fortwahrend Ubt, deckt sich
niclit mit seinem gottmenschlichen Thun im Stande der Erniedrigung, — es liegt
dariiber oder dahinter; " wahrend der Logos in allerfuUender Gegenwart die
Schiipfung durchwaltet, ist der Christus auf das Gebiet der ErlOsung, zeitweilig
wenigstens auf einem bestimmten Raum eingeschrankt. " Es ist also da eine
zvviefache Seinsweise, ein doppeltes Leben, ein gedoppeltes Bevi'usstsein, der Logos
ist oder hat noch immer etwas, was nicht in seiner geschichtlichen Erscheinung
aufgeht, was nicht auch des Menschen Jesus ist — und das scheint die Einheit der
Person, die Identitat des Ich zu zerstOren; es kommt so zu keiner lebendigen und
vollstandigen Durchdringung beider Seiten, zu keinem eigentlichen Menschsein
Gottes. s Ibid. ii. p. 143.

142 The Humiliation of Christ.

Incarnation is for the Son of God, necessarily, self-limita-
tion, self-emptying, not indeed of that which is. essential
to Deity in order to be God, but of the divine manner of
existence, and of the divine glory which He had from the
beginning with the Father, and which He manifested or
exercised in governing the world.* Such is the view given
by the apostle in the Epistle to the Philippians,^ such the
view demanded by the evangelic history; for on no other
view is it possible to conceive how, for example, Christ could
sleep in the storm on the Sea of Galilee. What real sleep
could there be for Him, who as God not only was awake,
but, on the anti-kenotic hypothesis, as ruler of the world,
brojight on, as well as stilled, the storm ? '

This doctrine, according to its author, while scriptural,
satisfies at the same time all theological requirements.
For one thing, it complies with the Lutheran axiom: " The
Word not outside the flesh, nor the flesh outside the
Word" {ncc vcrbiim extra carnem, nee car 0 extra verbtnn).*
Then the personality of Christ becomes what it ought to be,
a divine-human personality. The Son of God continues to
fee Himself, yet, having undergone kenosis in the manner
aforesaid. He is at the same time a human Ego.^ Christ
is the personal unity of divine essence and humankind, the
man who is God.® Furthermore, on this theory the two
natures are preserved entire and distinct. On the one hand,
jGod is not destroyed by self-limitation, for self-limitation
fis an act of will, therefore not negation but rather affirma-
'tion of existence. The essence of God is not stiff, dead
substance, but out and out will, life, action, self-asserting,
self-willing, self-controlling self Self-limitation, therefore,
does not contradict the essence of the absolute. The ab-
solute were impotence if it could not determine itself as it
wills. Then it must be remembered that God is love; and
if limits are to be placed to God's power of self-exinanition,

' person und Werk, ii. p. 143. * Ibid. ii. p. 148.

3 Ibid. ii. p. 156. * Ibid. ii. p. 201.

5 Ibid. ii. p. 200.

6 Ibid. ii. p. 203: Christus ist die persOnliche Einheit gOttlichen Wesens und
menschlicher Art: der Mensch, welcher Gott ist.

1 Ibid. ii. p. 203: Es ist sich selber setzendes, wollendes, seiner schlechthin
aiachtiges Selbst.

Modern Kenotic Theories. if^iji

they must be wide enough to give ample room for His love
to display itself. God may descend as far as love requires.
Love was the motive of the Incarnation, and love is the
sole measure of its depth; otherwise God is not the abso^
lutely free, His power is not servant to His will, but a tyrant
over it.' On the other hand, the humanity too remains
intact. For, according to our author, it is assumed entire,
with a reasonable soul as well as a body; the doctrine of
metamorphosis being repudiated as destructive at once of\
humanity and of divinity.^ Then, on this theory, the hu-\
man nature is not only entire as to its constituent parts,
but it possesses personality, and is no mere selfless me-
dium.' Christ is conscious of being a man, not less than
of being the Son of God. The Son of God, entering into
the existence form of creaturely personality, made Himself
the Ego of a human individual; and hence His conscious-
ness was specifically human, — the consciousness of a man
limited in nature, and possessing both a body and a soul,
having the same contents and the same conditions as ours.
The only difference between Christ and us is this, that
the Ego in Him was not originally born out of the hunKia
nature, but was rather born into it, in order to work itself
out of it, and through it, into a complete divine-human
person.* Yet again, this theory, according to its author,
does not disturb the immanent Trinity, for it makes the Son
of God, in becoming man, part with no essential attributes of
Deity It strips Him, indeed, of omnipotence, omniscience,
and omnipresence, the Redeemer being, during His earth-
ly state, neither almighty, nor omniscient, nor omnipresent.
But these are not essential attributes of God, they are
only attributes expressive of His free relation to the
world which He has made; attributes, therefore, not of the
immanent, but only of the economical Trinity, with which
God can part and yet be God, retaining all essential attri-

' Per s 071 iind Werk, ii. p. 204.

* The author makes such repudiation in connection with the views of Hahn and
Gess, who represent the Logos as taking the place of a human soul or spirit in
Christ. Vid. ii. p. 196.

3 Ibid. ii. pp. 201-207.

* Ibid. ii. pp. 206-208. The author's view is stated briefly in the text. Those
who possess the work referred to are recommended to read the whole passage.

144 ^^^ Humiliatio7i of Christ.

butes of Diety,— absolute power, absolute truth, absolute
holiness and love.^ These last the Son of God did retain
when He parted with the other relative attributes; far from
losing them in becoming incarnate, He rather entered into
a state in which He had an opportunity of revealing
them. For the humiliation of Christ was not all kenosis;
it was revelation as well as exinanition. It meant exinan-
ition so far as the relative attributes of Deity were con-
cerned,— self-emptying of omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnipresence.^ But it meant also, and partly on that very
account, revelation, manifestation of the absolute essential
attributes, — of absolute might as free self-determination,
of absolute truth as knowledge of His own being and of
His Father's mind, of absolute holiness and love.^ Finally,
the kenosis, while complete so far as the relative attributes
.of Deity are concerned, is nevertheless not a state of help-
\less passivity. Even when the passivity is at its maximum,
/ — in the conception, in death, — the kenosis is free, and
reaches its highest points of activity. In these moments
the Son of God makes the highest display of His obedience
towards God; they are the magna opera of His redeeming
love, thought, willed, done by Himself. Hoiv, we may not
be able to explain, but the fact is so. A right conception
of what is meant by potcnce helps, at least, to understand

' This distinction between the relative and essential attributes of God is the
speculative foundation of the Thomasian Christology. For a detailed exposition
of the author's doctrine of the attributes and of the Trinity, the reader is referred
to Christi Person iind Werk, vol. i. pp. 47-136.

* Person wid Werk, ii. p. 238. The miracles of Christ our author does not
regard as evidence of omnipotence; they were wrought through the Holy Spirit,
and proved not Christ's divine nature, but only His divine mission. Vid. p. 250.

3 Ibid. ii. pp. 236, 237; Es ist Offenbarung der immanenten gOttlichen Eigen-
schaften, der absoluten Macht, Wahrheit, Heiligkeit und Liebe. . . . Und diess
gilt nicht bios von den beiden zuletzt genannten, auch die beiden ersten eignen
ihm in dem frtiher (I. Th. § il u. 16) bezeichneten Sinne: die absolute Macht als
die Freiheit der Selbstbestimmung, als der sein selbst volkommen machtige Wille,
die absolute Wahrheit als das klare Wissen des Gottlichen urn sich selbst, naher,
als das Wissen des Menschgewordenen um sein eigenes Wesen und um den Willen
des Vaters. Nicht gelernt hat er diesen in irgend einer menschlichen Schule;
innerlich, vermOge seiner Einheit mit dem Vater, schaut er dessen ewige Ge-
danken. The author goes on to say, that though this knowledge was only grad-
ually developed through the Holy Ghost, it was but a development of what lay in
the depths of Christ's being.

Modern Kenotic Theories. 145

the mystery. Potence, as the word implies, does not sig-
nify something impotent or empty, but being contracted to
its innermost ground, fulness concentrated in itself from
the circumference of appearance and activity, having there-
fore power over itself. Such power was latent in the Log-
os, even after He had been reduced, through Incarnation,
to the state of a mere potency.'

(2) In constructing a theory of Christ's person to corre-
spond with the historical facts, as inductively ascertained,
Gess^ lays stress on three scriptural representations of the
Incarnation, in which that event is exhibited, (i) as an out-
going from the Father, (2) as a descent from heaven, and (3)
as becoming flesh. By the first of these representations,
the author understands an exit, on the part of the pre-exis-
tent Logos, out of the intimacy of His communion with the
Father,^ having for its result, not a dissolution of the
mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but a
suspension of the influx of the eternal life of the Father
who hath life in Himself into the Son, in virtue of which
the Son pro tempore ceased to have life in Himself The
Son, in becoming man, lost the consciousness, and with the
consciousness the activity, and with the activity the capacity
to receive into Himself the influx of the Father's life, and
to cause that instreaming life to flow forth from Himself
again.* By the descent from heaven is signified the humili-

' Person tind Werk, ii. p. 243: Beides lasst sich in den Begriff der Potenz zu-
sammenschliessen, von vvelcher wir sagten, dass sich der Logos, menschwerdend,
auf sie zuriickgezogen habe. Denn die Potenz ist, wie schon der Ausdruck an-
deutet, nicht etwas Ohnmachtiges oder Leeres, sondern das in seinem innersten
Grunde zusammengefasste Wesen, die aus der Peripherie der Erscheinung und
Actuositat in sich concentrirte unendliche Fiille, welche ebendeshalb die Macht
ihrer selbst ist. Und diese Macht tragt auch das gOttliche Selbstbewusstsein,
zwar niclit als reflectirtes, gegenstandliches, doch aber als latitirendes, mithin als
wirklich vorhandenes in sich. Es ist mit einbegriffen in der freien Willensthat,
kraft deren der Gottmensch sich selbst dahingibt. Vid. Appendix, Note A, for
an account of the kenotic literature coming under the Thomasian type.

« The following statement of Gess' theory is based on his work, Die Lehre von
der Person Christi entivickelt aus dem Selbstbewusstsein Christi und aus don
Zeugnisse der Apostel, Basel 1856. The author has published a new larger work
on the same theme, entitled Christi Person und Werk, of which the first volume
has for its subject the self-witness of Christ. No material change of view appears
in this volume.

» Die Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 294. ^ Ibid. ii. p. 307.

146 The Huniiliatio7i of Christ.

ation or kenosis whereof the apostle speaks; which, accord-
ing- to the most natural interpretation of the words, imports a
transition, on the part of the Logos incarnate, from a state
of equality with God into a state of dependence and need,
a laying aside of His pretemporal glory; that is, not merely
of the blessed life in light, but of the life which is indepen-
dent and self-sufficient, and of which omniscience and
omnipotence are attributes/ These attributes, therefore,
the Logos parted with in His descent from heaven; nay,
not only with these so-called relative attributes, but also
with those which Thomasius by way of distinction names
the immanent attributes of Deity. Licarnation involved
the loss not only of the perfect knowledge of the world,
called omniscience, but of the perfect vision of God, denom-
inated in the Thomasian theory absolute knowledge." For
the Logos, in becoming man, suffered the extinction of His
eternal self-consciousness, to regain it again after many
months, as a human, gradually developing, variable consci-
ousness, sometimes, as in childhood, in sleep, in death,
possessing no self-consciousness at all.^ All this is inevit-
ably involved in becoming flesh, for this third scriptural
representation of the Incarnation signifies, that the flesh
with which the Logos was united became for Him a deter-
mining power, even as, apart from sin, it is a determining
power for the ordinary human soul. According to the
creative decree of God, the life development of the soul
depends upon the development of the body; it requires a
certain maturity of the physical organization for the soul to
waken up to self-conscious voluntary life, in order that
thereafter, as personal soul, it may gradually subject its
bodily organ to the laws inscribed on itself by the hand of
divine holiness. Christ's life was subject to the same
decree. It was first a natural life, in which the Logos was
subject to the power of the flesh; then it became a personal
life, in which the Logos became self-conscious, and made

' Die Lehre von der Person Chris ti, ii. p. 296.

* Ibid. p. ii. 311. Gess disallows the Thomasian distinction between relative and
immanent attributes, and remarks, that if the doctrine of kenosis is to be built on
such an insecure foundation, it is in a bad way. P. 312.

3 Ibid. ii. p. 312.

Modem KenoHc Theories. 147

the flesh subject to Himself, until, at the close of His
human development, the body of His flesh became trans-
formed into a glorious body, that is, a body fitted to be
the perfect organ of the Logos, once more restored to the
fulness of divine life.^ In virtue of this subjection to the
determining power of the flesh, it came to pass that, when
the Logos in the child Jesus began to be self-conscious. He
knew nothing of His Logos-nature, and did not waken up
forthwith to the Logos-work of world-quickening, illumin-
ation, and government, but only to the work of calling
"my Father, my mother,"^ and of distinguishing between
good and evil. Doubtless the potence, the abstract capa-
city for these works, was there from the first, for the
Logos-essence remained unchangeable; the attributes of
omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence may be said to
have simply entered into a state of rest; but it was a rest
out of which they could not return into a state of activity,
so long as the moving power, the eternal self-consciousness,
on which they all depend, was itself not there." How and
when, then, did the Logos, plunged by Incarnation into the
oblivion-causing waters of Lethe, at length attain to
self-consciousness } Was it by recollection of His pre-
existent state .-' Not principally, for a clear and constant
recollection would be incompatible with a life of faith.* Or
was it by reflection and inference exercised on Old Testa-
ment Scriptures .-* This was undoubtedly one means to-
wards self-knowledge. The birth of Christ in the midst of
the. Jewish race made it possible for Him to attain to a
knowledge of who He was, by the zvay of a truly human
development. Had He been born a Greek, that would have

' Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi, ii. pp. 308, 309. 2 Ibid. ii. p. 306.

3 Die Ablegung der Allwissen"heit iind ewigen Heiligkeit kann als ein unmOg-
licher Gedanke erscheinen, aber die Sache wird klar, wenn man zuriickgeht auf die
Wurzel des Selbstbewusstsein. Mit dem allwissenden Ueberschauen der Welt war
aber zugleich auch das allvermOgende Regieren derselben aufgegeben, und mit
diesem das Allem Gegenwartig sein. Nicht als vvaren diese VermGgen schleclit-
weg dahmgewesen: die Logoswesenheit war ja auf Erden dieselbe, wie zuvor im
Himmel, man kann also sagen, diese VermOgen waren nur in den Stand der Ruhe
getreten, aber in eine Ruhe, aus welcher sie nicht in die Aktivitat zuriickkehren
konnlen, so lange die sie bewegende Kraft, nehmlich das ewige Selbstbewusstsein
selbst, nicht als seiches da gewesen ist. — Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi, ii. p. 317.

< Ibid. ii. p. 355.

148 The Humiliation of Christ.

been impossible.^ At the same time, it is not to be supposed
that self-consciousness was reached merely by reflection
and inference. There must have been latent in the incar-
V I nate Logos a certain instinct, as men call that mysterious
/ ' gift whose true name is an inspiration of God." As the
children of God know themselves to be such by the witness
of the Spirit; as the prophets knew that God had called
them, and had made a revelation to them, by an inward
assurance based on an intercourse between the divine
Spirit and the human soul, whose laws elude our compre-
hension, but whose reality is indubitable; so the knowledge
possessed by Jesus of the secret of His person was based
upon the peculiarly intimate fellowship which subsisted
between His Father and Himself.^ And for the rest, who
will deny that the recollection of the pre-existence might
occasionally flash through into the human consciousness
I of the Incarnate One .-' * As for the time at which the
I Logos incarnate attained to a clear self-consciousness, it
i cannot be precisely determined. The morning twilight of
His self-knowledge appeared when He was a boy of twelve
(years; the perfect day had arrived by the time He went
forth to commence His ministry. Between twelve and
thirty the great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the
flesh, had become fully revealed to the Incarnate mystery
Himself" Probably the revelation took place long before
He had reached the latter period of life; for Jesus had to
learn to wait as none other ever had. In all likelihood,
it was a part of His discipline, that He had to wait for the
\] appointed time for commencing His life-work long after
He had become aware what the work was to which He
was called.®

> Die Lehrev. d. Person Christi, ii. pp. 357-8: Unter den Griechen geboren,
halte Jesus sich nicht auf dem Wege wahrhaft menschliclier Entwicklung als den
Sohn Gottes zu erkennen vermocht.

2 Ibid. ii. p. 358: Janes Geheimnissvolle, das man etwa den geistigen Instinct
nennt, dessen eigentliches Wesen aber ein Anhauch Gottes ist.

3 Ibid. ii. p. 358.

< Ibid. ii. p. 358: Und vver wollte schlechthin leugnen, dass in einzelnen Mo-
menten die Erinnerung der Praexistenz den Fleiscligewordenen durchblitzen
niochte? Nur dass sie zur bleibenden Leuchte seines Inneren geworden sei, diirfea
wir um des oben angefulirten Grundes willen nicht annehmen.

= Ibid. ii. p. 359. « Ibid. ii. p. 361.

Modem Kenotic Theories. 149

Here, then, we have a tolerably complete metamorphosis
of the Logos, manifestly standing in great need of adjust-
ment to correlated doctrines. What, e.g., on this theory,
is to be said of the integrity of Christ's assumed humanity ?
The Logos, to all intents and purposes, is transformed into
a human soul; does He then assume another human soul
over and above ? Gess replies in the negative. The
Church, he says, quite properly affirmed, in opposition to
Apollinaris, that Christ had a true human soul; but it did
not see, what however is the truth, that the Logos Him-
self was that soul. He did not assume. He became a hu-
man soul, and thereby the presence of another soul was
rendered entirely superfluous.^ The only possible objec-
tion to calling the incarnate Logos a human soul is, that
His soul was not derived from Mary; but this objection has
force only for those who hold the traducian theory con-
cerning the origin of souls, which however is untenable
according to our author, all souls coming directly from
God. The only difference between the Logos and a human
soul was, that he became human by voluntary kenosis,
while an ordinary human soul derives its existence from a
creative act.'^ And how, again, are we to think on this
theory of Christ's moral integrity. His sinlessness .-* Was
that sinlessness, admitted as a fact, due to an inability to
sin (jion posse pcccare), as in the ApoUinarian system, which
made the Logos take the place of a human spirit in Jesus,
in order to get rid of the bare possibility of sin .'' Not so,
according to our author. A capability of sinning {posse
peccare) must be ascribed to Christ, otherwise the reality
of His humanity is denied. To represent the Saviour as
from the first in possession of a will unalterably decided for
God, is to revive in a new form the error of Apollinaris,
who made an unchangeable being take the place of the
changeable human soul.* The loss of eternal holiness was

' Die Lehre v. d. Person Ckristi, ii. p. 321: Dass eine vvahrhaft menschliche
Seele in Jesu war, versteht sich fiir und von selbst: er war ja sonst kein wirklicher
Mensch. Aber die Frage ist, ob der in's Warden eingegangene Logos selbst
diese menschliche Seele, oder ob neben dem in's Werden eingegangenen Logos
noch eine besondere menschliche Seele in Jesu war? P. 324: Wozu diese Dop-
pelheit und wer kann sie versteheri*

2 Ibid, ii, p. 325 ff. * Ibid. ii. p. 349.

i5o The Humiliation of ChvisL

one of the accompaniments of Incarnation. Not that there
is any need for asking in alarm, what would have happened,
had the possibility been converted into an actual fact, for
the Incarnation proceeded upon a divine foreknowledge
that the Incarnate Logos zvcmld not fall into sin; a fore-
knowledge which at the same time in no way interfered
with Christ's freedom, or imposed upon Him an eternal
necessity of not sinning.' That Christ was simply an or-
dinary man, who in virtue partly of His peculiar birth hap-
pened not to sin, is not asserted. Our author is not will-
ing to admit that his doctrine amounts to a metamorphosis
of the Logos into a man; he is anxious to make it appear
that there was a superadamitic element in Jesus. ^ But he
contends that that element did not consist in a non posse
peccare, but only in an extraordinary devotion, on the part
of the Incarnate Logos, to His Father's will, which was
accompanied by an equally extraordinary measure of the
Spirit's indwelling and influence, and of knowledge con-
cerning divine things.^

The theory in question stands in need of adjustment also
to the received doctrine of the divine unchangeableness and
to the doctrine of the Trinity. How is it possible, one may
well ask, that a Divine Being can thus all but extinguish
^Himself.'' The ready reply is: It is possible just because
He is God, and not a creature. The dependence of an

ordinary man appears, not merely in his inability to raise
'himself to a higher scale of being than he was designed for,
but also in his inability to make his life cease, or to reduce
it into a state of unconsciousness. The Logos, on the
contrary, has life in Himself; His voluntary reception of
the life streaming into Him out of the Father is the ground

1 Die Lehre von dcr Person Christi, ii. p. 318.

2 Ibid. ii. p. 350; In dieser Eikenntniss dass der irdische Entwicklungsgang des
Sohnes die Mo^lichkeit des Siindigens in sich schloss, und dass eben diess zur
Aufgabe Tesu gehOrte, den Natiirzug seines ewigen Geistes zu Gott zum gehei-
ligten Charakter zu erlieben, darf uns audi die Frage nicht irre machen, was doch
geworden ware, wenn der, welcher sundigen konnte, wirklich g°sDndigt hatte.
Die Antwort, welclie auf diese Frage gegeben werden kann, ist nur ^ie, dass Got*
sein bflndloses bestehen aller Versuchungen vorausgesehen hat.

3 Jbid. p. 331, note in reply to Liebner.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i5i

of His life, His self-consciousness is His own deed.^ Hence
He can extinguish His self-consciousness; He ^v^ould not be
almighty if He had not power over Himself. The power
of God indeed is not limitless, nor is His freedom arbitrary.
But the only limit of divine power is holiness or love. If,
therefore, the holy love of God desires to help us, and if
for that end Incarnation is necessary, and if Incarnation
involves in its very nature transient extinction of the divine
self-consciousness, and the resumption of the same as
human, and subject to growth, then such an experience
must be possible.^

How, finally, is this metamorphic theory of the Incarna-
tion to be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?
The author admits that his theory involves these four con-
sequences for the internal life of the triune God: (i) the
eternal, forth-streaming of the divine life of the Son out of
the Father is brought to a stand during the time of the
•kenosis; (2) for that reason, during the same time, the Son
..cannot be the life-source out of which the Holy Ghost
iflows; (3) during that time the subsistence of the world in
the Son, its upholding and government through the Son,
is suspended; (4) as the glorified Son remains man, from
the time of His exaltation a man is taken up into the trin-
itarian life of God. He rem_arks that the three first con-
^5equences could easily be got rid of by adopting the theory
of a double life of the Logos, and holding that while the
Son of God, as the man Jesus, emptied Himself utterly of
divine glory, and lived, our like, with purely human conscious-
ness and will, nevertheless His divine trinitarian being and
rule underwent no interruption. He declines, however, to
adopt this view, and prefers to escape difficulties by adjust- \
ing the doctrine of the Trinity to his own theory. This he
does by introducing into the Trinity a certain inequality
between the persons. The Father alone possesses the
property of being from Himself (aseity). The Son, indeed,
also hath life in Himself; but it is as a gift of the Father's

> Vid. Zvveiter Abschnitt, cap. 3, p. 222, " Die gOttliche Henlichkeit Jesu aof
Erden."
"^ Ibid. p. 319.

1 52 The Humiliation of Christ.

eternal love.^ If the relation between the persons were one,
according to which they were all mutually conditioning
and conditioned, then thekenosis would either be impossible,
or it would imperil the Godhead of the Father. But as the
Father alone possesses aseity, and as it is His free love
which begets the Son, it is possible for the Father, during
the period of exinanition, to substitute, for the overflow of
His life into the Son, that gentle influx of life into Jesus,
wave by wave, which corresponds to the Son's position as
a man subject to gradual development in time," reserving
to Himself, the while, the government of the world and the
administration of the Spirit. Nor does this change affect
the eternity of divine life, or of the generation of the Son
(though that process during the exinanition comes to a
temporary pause'), or of the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Son. Eternity does not consist in the exclusion
of change. The eternity of the Father lies in His aseity;
the eternity of the Son and Spirit in the freedom of their
life, which streams forth from the Father, and is essentially
equal to the life of the Father. By entering into time, and

• Die Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 396 ff. In proof that the Fatlier alone
possesses aseity, Gess refers to the text: "The Father hath given the Son to have
life in Himself," and to the fact that in Scripture the Father is called Der Gott,
while the Son is called only Gott, and that He is also called the God of Christ
(pp. 402, 403).

2 Ware das Gottsein des Vaters durch die ewige, evvig gegenwiirtige Zeugung
des Sohnes bedingt, so liesse sich nicht verstehen, wie der Sohn sich seiner Got-
tesherrlichkeit entaussern, wie die ewige Zeugung des Sohnes durch den Vater,
das ewige AustrOmen des Gotteslebens vom Vater in den Sohn sich stille stellen
kann: die Gottheit des Vaters selbst wiirde dadurch gefahrdet scheinen. Noch
weniger ware die Selbstentausserung des Sohnes mOglich, wenn auch diesem ein
Antheil zukame an Gottes Aseitat, an Gottes Selbstbegrundung, so dass nur in der
dreipersOnlichen SelbstbegUrndung Gottes, wie jede der drei Personem, so die
Totalitat derselben ihr Leben hatte. Aber es ist die freie Liebe des Vaters,
welche den Sohn zeugt, darum kann der Vater, fiir die Zeit der Selbstentausserung
des Sohnes, an die Stelle der voUen UeberstrOmung des Gotteslebens vom Vater
in den Sohn jenes sanfte Einfliessen einer Lebenswelle um die andere in Jesum
eintreten lassen, welches dem Eingegangensein des Sohnes in die Verhaltnisse
eines allmahlig sich entwickelnden, uberhaupt der Zeitlichkeit unterworfenen
Menschen entspricht.— Z);> Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 403.

;i Ibid. ii. p. 405. The glorification of Christ after the time of exinanition was
past, consisted in the recommencement of the process of eternal generati m which
took place immediately after, so that the Son of God had power to raise His own
body. — r/^. also pp. 380-382.

Modem Kenotic Theories. i5

undergoing kenosis for thirty years, the Son did not become
subject to time, but rather revealed the eternal as the King
of time. To master time, so that it shall not stand over
against the supra-temporal as an unapproachable Other,
but be a form of existence at His command, is God's highest
revelation of His eternity/ ^

(3) The kenotic theory as expounded by Ebrard pos-
sesses interest not only as a distinct type of the doctrine,
but as a contribution to the literature of the subject, by a
prominent modern representative of the Reformed com-
munion, professing cordial, though not slavish, attachment
to the doctrinal tendency of his church. Ebrard first pro-
mulgated his view of the person of Christ in a work on the
dogma of the Holy Supper, published in 1845-46, and de-
signed to promote the cause of union; and subsequently at
greater length in a work on Christian dogmatics, published
in 1851-52.^ This able, learned, but somewhat whimsica.'
and unreliable writer, agrees with Gess in making the in-
carnate Logos take the place of a human soul. The ancient
Church was of course right in maintaining, against Apol-
linaris, that Christ had a true human soul; for, in truth,
the Logos, in undergoing Incarnation, became a human
soul. According to the representation in Scripture, Jesus
did not consist of a body in which, in place of a human
soul, dwelt the eternal Logos — a monstrous conception —
the eternal Logos dwelling in a space-bounded body ! but
the eternal Son of God in becoming man gave up the form
of eternity, and in full self-limitation assumed the exis-
tence-form of a human life-centre, of a human soul; had,
as it were, reduced Himself to a human soul.^ This self-

' Die Lehre von der Person Christi, pp. 405, 406: Dieses freie Hineintreten
in die Zeitlichkeit, um wieder zuriickzukehren in die Ewigkeit, ist also gerade ein
Triumphiren der Ewigl'ceit iiber die Zeitlichkeit, eine Erweisung des Ewigen als
des KOniges der Zeit welche ilim dienen muss, indem er sich in iliren Dienst tje-
giebt und welche ihn nicht festhalten kann, nachdem er S2in Werlc vollbraclit.
Koniglich die Zeit zu bemeistern, dass sie dern Ueberzeitlichen nicht als ein un-
nahbares Anderes gegeniibersteht, sondern als eine Form seines Daseins zu Gebote
steht, das ist Gottes hOchste Offenbarung seiner Ueberzeitlichkcit.

* See Appendix, Note B, on literature belonging to the Gcssian type.

3 See Appendix, Note C.

■* Christliche Dogtnatik, ii. p. 40: Der ewige Sohn Gottes hatte die Form der
Ewigkeit aufgegeben und in freier Selbstbeschrankung die Existenzform eines

i54 The Hiiniiliation of Christ.

reduction, however, does not in the scheme now under
review, as in that of Gess, amount to a depotentiation of
the incarnate Logos. The Son of God in becoming man
underwent not a loss, but rather a disguise of His divinity;
not, however, in the old Reformed sense of occultation, but
in the sense that the divine properties, while retained, were
possessed by the Theanthropos only in the time-form
appropriate to a human mode of existence. The Logos, in
assuming flesh, exchanged the form df God, that is, the
eternal manner of being, for the form of a man, that is, the
temporal manner of being. Herein consisted the kenosis.*
The kenosis does not mean that Christ laid aside His omni-
potence, omnipresence, and omniscience; but that He re-
tained these in such a way that they could be expressed or
manifested, not in reference to the collective universe, but
only in reference to particular objects presenting themselves
to His notice in time and space. Omnipotence remained,
but in an applied form, as an unlimited power to work
miracles; omniscience remained in an applied form, as an
unlimited power to see through all objects which He zvished
to see through; omnipresence remained in an applied form,
as an unlimited power to transport Himself whither He
would. ^ The incarnate Son of God stood over against
nature as the absolute Lord ruling over it in a free creative
manner; not, indeed, in the form of world-governing omni-
potence, but in the form of omnipotence applied to par-
ticular cases, in particular times and places. Though He
no longer possessed eternal omniscience, yet He possessed,
in reference to particular objects which came in His way,
a knowledge which, compared with the knowledge of sin-

menschlichen Lebenscentmms, einer menschlichen Seele, angenommen, hatte
sich gleichsam bis zu einer Menschenseele reducirt. See also vol. ii. p. 7, note on
the miraculous conception, where we read: jene Svva/.ti'i Gottes hatte nicht das
Geschaft, eine Seele {-ein Lebenscentrum) zu erzeugen, sondern sie hatte nur das
weibliche oviihtm so zu verandern, dass der Sohn Gottes welcher, in die Form der
unbewussten Seele eingehend, als solche zugleich in's ovtilum eingehen wollte, im
oziulum alien zur Bildung einer embryonischen Leiblichkeit nOthigen Stoff vorf'and.

' ChristUche Dogmatik, ii. p. 34: Die nopq)!] 0sov gab er auf, d. h. das ida
0E(S, das "auf gleiche Art wie Gott sein," also die Ewigkeitsfonn, und nahm
daftir die Form der Menschheit (dx'JMf^ dvBpooTtov). Similarly, Das Dogma
von H. A., i. p. 191.

2 Das Dogma von heil. Abendmahl, ii. p. 790.

Modeim Kenotic Theories. i55

ful man, is altogether supernatural. In walking on the
sea, He exhibited a wonder of applied omnipresence/ In
the use of these powers He was subject to His Father's
will; but, nevertheless, they were inherent in His person;
He had free control over them; it is conceivable that He
might have made a wrong use of them, and herein lay the
point of the temptation in the wilderness.^

Ebrard accepts the Chalcedonian formula — two natures
in one person; but he puts his own meaning on the word
"natures." By the two natures he understands not two
parts or pieces, two subsistent essences united to each other,
but two ad s ^racta predicdited of the one Christ; two aspects,
of the one divine human person. In particular, the human
nature was not an existing thing, but only a manner or
form of being, a complex of properties. The thesis, the
Son of God assumed human nature, is equivalent to this:
that the Son of God, giving up the form of eternity and en-
tering into time-form, and beginning to exist as a human life-
centre, formed for Himself out of this life-centre a human-
ity in the concrete sense, that is, a human body, soul and
spirit, or all momenta and essences which the human life-
centre needed for its concrete being and life. Hence the
divine nature and the human nature stand related to each
other as essence and form: Divine nature as an abstractiim
is predicated of Christ, because He is the eternal Son of God
entered into a time-form of existence, possessing the ethical
and metaphysical attributes of God (that is, God's essence)
in a finite form of appearance. Human nature is predicated
of Christ, because He has assumed the existence form of
humanity, and exists as centre of a human individuality
with human soul, spirit, body, development. Christ is
therefore not partly man, partly God, but wholly man; but
if the question be asked, who is this, the answer must be:
He is the Son of God, who has by a free act denuded Him-

• Dogmatik, ii. pp. 20, 29.

2 Ibid. ii. pp. 30, 31. The view stated above, Ebrard defends against Lange,
who maintains {Leben Jesu) that Jesus was conditioned by the will of the Father,
not merely in the voluntary use of His miraculous power, but in the possession of
the power itself, just like any of the prophets. This position Ebrard holds to be
contrary to Scripture.

1 56 The Humiliation of Christ.

self of His world-governing, eternal form of being, and
entered into the human form of being. It is a divine person
who has made Himself a human person.' Ebrard reckons
it as the fault of Nestorius, and after him of the old Luther-
ans (whom he charges with Nestorianism, resulting in the
state of exaltation, in the opposite extreme of Eutychian-
ism), that the two natures of Christ were treated as con-
cretes. On the other hand, he claims for the old Reformed
Christologists a clear understanding of the true state of
the case. They meant just what he teaches when they said,
that in the Incarnation a divine person was not united with
a human person, or a divine nature with a human nature;
but a divine person assumed a human nature.- In one
respect only did they come short, viz. in reference to the
question how the concrete consciousness and life of the
person Christ are to be conceived. On this point, accord-
ing to our author, the Reformed Church has never attained
to a clear understanding; the reason, in his judgment, being,
that the Christology of that Church has failed to grasp the
distinction between the eternity-form {Ewigkeitsforni) and
the time-form {^Zeitlichkeitsforvi) of the divine essence. The
Reformed theologians, notwithstanding their controversy
with the Lutherans, came at last to think of the incarnate
Logos as world-governing, and possessing omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence in reference to the universe
at large, — a view which came practically to the same thing
as the Lutheran one. All the difference was this: the

I Dogmatik, ii. pp. 41, 42: Die nat. div. und die nat. hum. sind also nicht zwei
Subsistenzen oder Theile in Christo, sondern zwei abstracta, die von dem Einen
Christus pradicirt werden. GOttliche Natur wird von ihm pradicirt, sofern er der
in die Zeittorm eingegangne ewige Sohn Gottes ist, und die etliischen und meta-
physischen Eigenschaften Gottes, d. h. das Wesen Gottes, wiewohl in endlicher
Erscheinungsform, besitzt. Menscliliche Natur wird von ihm ausgesagt, wiefern
er die Existenzform der Menschheit angenommen hat, und als Centrum einer
menschlichen Individualitat mit menschlicher Seele, Geist, Leib, Entwicklung
existirt. (GOtth'che Natur: menschliche Nature Wesen: Existenzialform.) Er ist
also nicht theilweise Mensch und theilweise Gott, sondern er ist ganz Mensch; aber
auf die Frage: Wer ist dieser? (nicht, was?) heisst der Antwort: der, der dieser
Mensch ist, ist der Sohn Gottes, der sich in freiem Akte seiner weltregierenden
Ewigkeitsform begeben, und in die menschliche Seynsform versetzt hat. Er ist
also Eine Person, diXZ persona divma, welche sich zu eintr persona hmnana ge-
macht hat.

* Ibid. ii. p. 41.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i57

Lutheran taught that the human nature in the status ex-
inanitionis either renounced or did not exercise omni-
science, etc., while the Logos at the same time retained and
used it, so that the latter knew all, while the former did not;
the Reformed, on the other hand, taught that the Logos
incarnate was omniscient, and in the world-governing sense,
while the human nature was not. Both positions alike
were virtually Nestorian.* The true view is, that the powers
of the eternal Godhead revealed themselves in Christ, not
alongside of the powers of His humanity, not as superhu-
man, but in the powers of His humanity; even herein, that
His human powers were supernatural, that is, exceeded the
capacities of nature as depraved by sin, and He was abso-
lutely superior to this depraved nature, so that when and
where He wished to work it formed no limit to Plis power.''.
By this view our author believes the problem is solved:
how the divine and the human attributes which constitute
the two natures can co-exist in the same person without
cancelling each other. The divine attributes remain in an
applied form, and in that form they are truly human. Ap-,
plied omnipotence is simply the dominion of the spirit over
nature, which belongs to the idea of man. Applied omni-
science is the dominion of the spirit over the objects of
knowledge, to which man was originally destined. Applied
omnipresence, the power to be where one wills, is simply
the dominion of the spirit over the material body, which
man was designed to attain; the body in its ultimate idea
not being a foreign burden subject to elementary influences,
but a free projection of the soul in space, released from all
subjection to the elements, to death, or to the law of grav-
ity.* Whether this be a successful solution of the problem
in hand or not, it will be apparent that it is at all events a
very different view of the historical Christ from that which
we had last under consideration. Gess' view of Christ is
thoroughly humanistic; Ebrard's, on the other hand, has far
more of the divine element in it, and wears a much more

' Abendmahl, ii. p. 792. Ebrard gives Zuingli and Olevian credit for having
clearer views than most of the Reformed on the subject of the divine attributes.
* Dogmatik, ii. p. 143.
3 Abendmahl, i. pp. 192, 193. Dogmatik, ii. pp. 28, 29.

1 58 The Htimiliation of Christ.

decided appearance of Apollinarism. As if to compensate
for the Apollinarian tendency on the metaphysical side,
our author is most decidedly anti-Apollinarian in the view
he takes of the ethical d.s'pect of Christ's humanity, ascribing
to the incarnate Logos z. posse peccare, representing Him as
gaining confirmation in obedience by the practice of it under
trying circumstances, reaching the higher freedom through
the right use of freedom of choice, and gaining heavenly
glory strictly as a reward of His filial virtue — all this being
demanded by the time-form of existence.^

We now understand in what sense the kenotic theory as
taught by Ebrard can be described as metamorphic. The
metamorphosis consists simply in an exchange of the eter-
nal for the time-form of existence; an exchange which,
once made, is perpetual.^ It remains to be added that this
change of form is not relative merely, but absolute; involv-
ing the absolute and perpetual renunciation of the eternal
form of being, not simply the renunciation of it with ref-
erence to the incarnate life of the Logos. Our author is
indeed at this point extremely difficult to understand, and
I am doubtful whether the words just used correctly de-
scribe his position, or even whether his position be a self-
consistent one. For, on the one hand, he says in one
place that there is nothing in Scripture to countenance the
idea that the Logos retained the form of eternity on enter-
ing into the time-form, and while He was in Christ, gov-
erned the world over and above.' But, on the other hand,
he recognises it as a part of the Christological problem to
be solved: how can the Logos, conscious of Himself as the
eternal, be also conscious of the man Jesus existing in time
as Himself .-' and, on the other hand, how can the man
Jesus, existing in time, be conscious of the eternal Logos

' Dogmatik, ii. p. 22.

2 Ibid. ii. p. 37: Form der Menschheit iind Form der Ewiglceit (im Sinn von
Ueberzeitlichkeit) schliessen sich schlechlhin aus; Christus hat die letztre filr immer
auf^egeben, die erstre fiir immer angenommen, und der Uebergang aus der unter
dem Tod geknechteten Menschheit in die vom Tode befreite, verklarte, hat im
Verbaltniss seiner gOtthchen Natur zu seiner menschlichen nichts geandert.

^ Dogmatik, ii. p. 35: Die h. Schrift weiss nichts davon, dass der X6yo<i die
Form der Ewigkeit beibehalten babe, und wahrend er in Christo war, nebenbei
auch noch die Welt regiert habe, sondern er ward Mensch.

Modern Kenotic Theories, iSg

as Himself? in other words, is a unity of consciousness be-
tween the eternal and the incarnate Logos conceivable ? '
The same problem is also put in this form: How is a per-
sonal unity between the world-governing Son of God in the
Trinity and the incarnate Son of God, who has given up the
form of eternity, possible, the one being world-governing,
omniscient, etc., while the other is not?" It is true the
problem is regarded as a psychological one, and may be
said to have for its aim to demonstrate the possibility of
conscious personal identity surviving the change from the
eternal to the time-form of existence. But the very terms
in which the problem is stated seem to show that the
eternity-form is not thought of as having ceased to exist.
Indeed, it is expressly admitted that such language is
meaningless with reference to the Eternal. Speaking
strictly, we ought not to say the Son of God Jias given up
the Eivigkc its form, for in eternity there is no " has " and
no " given up." Words implying tense are inapplicable to
eternity, whose relation to time is not such that one can
say eternity is before time, or after it, or during it.^ Then,
further, supposing the psychological problem to be satis-
factorily solved for the period of Christ's mature manhood,
that is, granting that then the man Jesus could be conscious
of His identity with the eternal, world-governing Logos,
which is all that is claimed as made out,* what of the period
of immaturity, of childhood ? With reference to this pe-
riod, the author remarks that identity of person is not to
be confounded with unity or continuity of consciousness.'
Perfectly true; but the question is not as to identity of the
person, but as to the combination in the same person of

1 Abeiidmahl, i. p. l85: Ob sich der seiner als eines ewigen, bevvusste Logos,
des zeitlich existirenden Menschen als seiner selbst bevvusst seyn kOnne, und ob der
zeillich existirende Mensch Jesus sich des ewigen Logos als seiner selbst bewusst
seyn kOnne; oh also eine Einheit des Bewusstseins zwischen dem ewigen und dam
menschgewordenen Logos denkbar sei.

* Doginatik, ii. p. 144: Wie ist zwischen dem weltregierenden Sohn Gottes in
der Trinitat und dem menschgewordenen Sohn Gottes, der die Ewigkeitsform auf-
gegeben hat, eine persOnliche Einheit denkbar ? Jener ist weltregierend allwissend,
dteser nicht.

3 Ibid. ii. p. 146. ■* Ibid. ii. p. 145-

« See Appendix, Note D, for an account of Ebrard's method of solving the
problem.

i6o The Humiliation of Christ.

two modes of existence; a question which must surely be
answered in the affirmative, if it be admitted that the Lo-
gos was self-conscious even when the child Jesus was ut-
terly unconscious. This position Ebrard, so far as appears,
does not call in question, and therefore it might be legiti-
mate to represent his theory as one which teaches only a
relative metamorphosis of the Logos, — a change in the form
of existence which is after all not so much an exchange, as
the adding of one form of existence to another. Such is the
sense in which the theory has been understood by some of
its author's own countrymen,^ and the correctness of the
interpretation might with some confidence be inferred from
the fact that a double existence is expressly taught by other
writers whose Christological views come nearest to the
Ebrardian type. Nevertheless it is not advisable to force
on any author a doctrine which he seems disinclined to
hold, and therefore we must reckon it as the character-
istic of the present type of kenosis, that it teaches an ab-
solute and perpetual exchange of the Eternal for the time-
form of existence, as necessarily involved in the idea
of Incarnation.

(4) Martensen,^ on the other hand, is beyond all doubt
an advocate of a real yet only relative kcnosis. This dis-
tinguished Danish theologian, in whose writings are finely
blended philosophic insight and poetic grace, distinguishes
between the Logos revelation and the Christ revelation.
The revelation of the Son of God in thefulness of time implies

' -By Gess, at least, who, having quoted a passage from SchOberlein [Grimd-
lekren des Ileils), to the effect that the Logos incarnate has a double existence,
and that we must recognise at once a real kenosis and a possession, yea, a use
without concealment of the divine glory, adds in a note: " Aehnligh Ebrard in der
Dogmatik." Die LeJire von der Person Christi, p. 390. On the other hand,
Hofmann, Schriflbeweis, ii. p. 24, seems to understand the exchange of eternity-
form with the time-form taught by Ebrard as an absolute one. With reference,
and in opposition, to Ebrard's view he remarks: Aber audi so ist es nicht, dass
er die Ewigkeitsform mit der Zeitlichkeitsform vertauscht hat, sondern aus semeni
geschichtlichen Stande der Ueberweltlichkeit, des weltbeherrschenden KOnnens
and Wollens und Gegenwartigseins ist er, der hier und dort gleich Ewige, in die
Innerweltlichkeit, in die menschliche Umschranktheit des Daseyns und Wissens
und KOnnens eingegangen, die eine geschichtliche Bethatigung seines ewigen We-
Bens mit der andern vertauschend.

2 Die Christ liche Dogmatik, Deutsche Ausgabe, Berlin 1856, pp. 221-272.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i6i

a pre-existence, which does not signify merely an original
being in the Father, but also an original being in the world.
As the Pi^ediator between the Father and the world, it be-
longs to the essence of the Son to live not only in the
Father, but also in the world. As " the heart of God the
Father," He is at the same time the eternal heart of the
world, through which the divine life flows into the creation.
As the Logos of the Father, He is at the same time the
eternal world-Logos, through whom the divine light rays
forth into the creation. He is ground and source of all
reason in the creation, whether in man or in angel, in
Greek or in Jew. He is the principle of law and promise
in the Old Testament, the eternal light wliich shines in the
darkness of heathendom; all holy germs of truth to be
found in the heathen world have been sown in the souls of
men by Him. He is the eternal principle of providence,
amid the confusion of the world's life; all forces of nature,
all ideas and angels, being ministering instruments of His
all-ordering, all-guiding will. But, in His pre-existence,
He is only the essential, not the real Mediator between
God and the creature; the contrast between Creator and
created is cancelled in essence only, not in existence; the
variance between God and the sinful world is done away
with only in idea, not in life. Therefore it was needful
that the pre-existent Logos should become man, and sup-
plement the Logos-revelation by a Christ-revelation.^ The
novel element in the latter is such a union of the divine
and human natures that a man appears on the earth as the
self-revelation of the divine Logos, as the God-man? The
eternal omnipresent Word became flesh, was born into
time. That, however, does not mean that, with the Incar-
nation, the eternal Logos ceased to exist in His general
world-revelation, or that the Logos, as self-conscious per-
sonal Being, was inclosed in His mother's womb, was born
as an infant, grew in knowledge; for such a representa-
tion is incompatible with the idea of birth. Temporal
birth necessarily implies a progress from the unconscious
to the conscious, from possibility to reality, from germ to
mature organization; and any other mode of conceiving

• Dogmatik, pp. 221, 222. ' Ibid. p. 224.

1 62 The Hinniliatlon of Christ.

the birth of the God-man must be characterized as doketic.
\ The birth of the Logos means that He enters into the

bosom of humanity as possibility, as a holy seed, that He

I may arise within the human race as a mediating, redeem-

■ing, human revelation; that the divine fulness individual-
. . . .

/ izes itself in a single human life, so that the entire sum of

holy powers is herein involved. That the Son of God was
in His mother's womb not as a self-conscious divine Ego,
but as an immature unborn child, is indicated by the words
of the angel to Mary: "That holy thing which shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God." ^ But as that
holy thing, in the course of growth, became conscious of
Himself as a human Ego, in the same measure He became
conscious of His Godhead, and knew Himself as a divine
human Ego, because the fulness of Godhead was the life-
ground of His human life; knew Himself as not only hav-
ing part in the divine Logos, but as the divine-human con-
tinuation of the everlasting life of Godhead. Hence, while
Christ said, " I and the Father are one," — an affirmation
of unity implying a personal distinction, — He never said,
** I and the Logos are one," because He 7aas the Logos
revealing Himself in human form.^

In view of these statements, it is easy to see in what sense
the kenosis is to be understood. It means that the Logos.
qua incarnate, possesses His Godhead in the limited forms
of human consciousness. He is true God; but, in the Christ
revelation, the true Godhead is never outside the true hu-
manity. It is not the naked God we see in Christ, but the
fulness of Godhead within the compass of humanity; not
the properties of the divine nature in their unlimited world-
infinitude, but these properties transformed into properties
of human nature; the omnipresence becoming the blessed
presence of Him who said: " Whoso seeth me seeth the
Father; " the omniscience becoming the divine-human wis-
dom which reveals to the simple the mysteries of the king-
dom; the omnipotence becoming the world-conquering and

' Lnke i. 35: to yEvvoo/dEvov ayiov (neuter).

2 Dogmatik, pp. 244, 245: Obgleich daher Christus zeus^t: "Ich und der Vater
sind Eins," sagt er doch niemals: Ich und der Logos sind Eins. Demi er ist die
menschliche iiV/iJj/offenbarung des gOttlichen Logos.

Modern Kcnotic Theories. 163

completing" might of holiness and love of Him, to whom was
given all power in heaven and on earth. Christ, in pos-
session of these transformed attributes, is not less God than
the Logos in His universal world-revelation; for the Deity
of the Son is the Deity of the Mediator God, or of God as
the revealer of God; and in no form is the Son in a truer
sense the Mediator and the Revealer of God, than in the
form of the Son of man.^ And while the kenosis is per-
fectly compatible with essential Deity even in the Son of
man, it does not exclude the continued existence of the
Logos as the Mediator and Revealer for the world at large.
As the omnipresent Logos, the Son of God continues to
shine through the whole creation.^ He lives a dotible life:
as the pure divine Logos, He works throughout the king-
dom of nature, preparing the conditions for the revelation
of His all-completing love; as Christ, He works through
the kingdom of grace and redemption, and indicates His
consciousness of personal identity in the two spheres, by
referring to His pre-existence, which to His human con-
sciousness takes the form of a recollection}

On two points Martensen does not fully explain himself:
^' the human soul of Christ; and the questionr'How is the
duality in the life of the Logos to be reconciled with the
unity of His personality } As to the former, though it is
nowhere said, it seems to be tacitly implied, that the incar-
nate_Logjos tookJii_Christ th^place of a human soul. The
latter topicaTsothe author passes over in discreet silence,
thinking it better, possibly, to attempt no solution, than to
offer his readers such an abstruse speculation as that by
which Ebrard endeavours to explain how the Eternal and

• Dogmatik, pp. 247, 248.

* Ibid. p. 246: Als der allgegenwartige Logos die ganze SchOpfung durch-
leuchtet.

3 Ibid. p. 247: Wohl aber mtissen wir sagen dass der Sohn Gottes in der
Ockonomie des Vaters ein doppeltes Dasein fuhrt, dass er ein Doppelleben lebt in
weltscliCpfeiischer iind weltvollendender Thatigkeit. Als der reine Gottlieitslogos
diirchwirkt er in Alles erfullender Gegenwart das Reich der Natur, wirkt die Vor-
aussetzungen und Bedingungen fiir die Offenbarung seiner Alles vollendenden
Liebe. Als Christus durchwirkt er das Reich der Gnade, der ErlOsung, und Vol-
lendung, uird vveist zuriick auf seiner Praexistenz. See also p. 250, where Christ
is spoken of as recollecting His pre-existence: Erinnert er sich seiner ewigen PrS-
existenz und seines Aus^angs vom Vater.

164 The Htiviiliation of Christ.

the Incarnate Logos can have an identical consciousness.^
He animadverts on the dualism, not to speak of the mon-
strosity, introduced into the person of Christ by the old
orthodox Christology, according to which Christ, as a child
in the cradle, secretly carried on the government of the world
with the omniscience that work required; while, at the same
time, in His human nature He grew in knowledge and wis-
dom. B}^ such a grotesque representation, he contends,
the unity of the person is annulled, two parallel series of
conscious states which never unite are introduced, and the
result is in effect a Christ with two heads. ^ But the friends
of antiquated orthodoxy might turn round and ask: What
better are we on your theory .-' You say we teach a Christ
with two non-communicating or non-coincident conscious-
nesses, or with two heads; you teach a Logos with a double
life: one in the world at large, another in the man Jesus;
infinite in the former, limited, self-emptied, in the latter;
a mere unconscious possibility to begin with, and never ex-
ceeding the measures of humanity: show us the possibility
of such a double life, and its compatibility with a single
personality. This demand some believers in a real but
relative kenosis treat as legitimate, and attempt to satisfy.
Martensen seems to have preferred to regard the problem
as a mj'stery, deeming the kenosis in the sense explained
an indubitable Scripture doctrine and historical fact, and
the continued activity of the world-sustaining Logos an
obvious corollary from His distinctive function as the Me-
diator and Revealer in relation to the universe, and not
holding himself bound to reconcile the two, any more than
to clear up in a perfectly satisfactory manner any other
mystery of the Christian faith. ^

Such are the leading forms which the modern kenotic
theory has assumed in the hands of its advocates. In pro-
ceeding now to a critical estimate of this theory, certain

' See Appendix, Note D.

' Dogmatik, p. 249: Die Einheit der Person wird aiifgelioben, und wir be-
kommeu in Chiisto zvvei verscliiedene Bewusstseinsreihen, die niemals zusammen
gehen werden. Wir bekommen gleichsam einen Christus mil zvvei KOpfen, ein
Bild, welches nicht nur den Eindruck des Uebermenschlichen sondern des Mon
stri5sen macht, und dem die elhische Wirkung fehlt.

3 Vid. Appendi.K, Note E, for literature belongnig to the Martensen type.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i65

general considerations suggest themselves, which may here
be submitted by way of preface.

I. The theory in question, whether tenable or not, is at
all events animated by a genuinely orthodox interest; as,
indeed, might be inferred from a rapid glance at the roll of
its supporters, which includes, in addition to those already
mentioned, the names of such men as Delitzsch and Hof-
mann, whose orthodoxy, in the catholic sense, is above
suspicion. Kenosis, in all its forms presupposes the Church \
doctrines of the Trinity and the pre-existence of the Lo-
gos. The very aim of the theory is to show how the eter- '
nally pre-existent Son of God, second person of the Trin-
ity, by a free self-conscious act of self-exinanition, made '
Himself capable of Incarnation after the manner recorded in
the Gospels. It is true, indeed, that some advocates of the
kenotic Christology have deemed it necessary to lay a foun-
dation for the self-emptying of the Logos in a conception
of the Trinity, or of the Trinitarian Process, as it is called,
which involves a Subordinatian view of the relation of the
Son to the Father.' But the abler or more cautious mem-
bers of the school avoid this opinion in their statement of
the doctrine; " and there does not appear to be any neces-
sary connection between the kenosis implied in the Incar-
nation, and an eternal inequality of the persons within the
immanent Trinity. In every Christological theory it is a
problem why the Son and not the Father became incar-
nate; and all theories alike are liable to err in the solution
of the problem, if they attempt it and do not prefer to let |
it alone.' :

2. This theory further proposes to itself most legitimate ,
and even praiseworthy ends. It may be said to have two ;
ends in view, one religious, the other scientific — to do full / \'
justice to the divine Love as manifested in the Incarnation,

' E. g. Gess, Liebner. 2 jt_ g_ Hofmann, Delitzsch. /

3 Schneckenburger thinks that the kenotic theory, if logically carried out to it$
ultimate consequences, involves the dissolution of the Trinity. Vojn doppelten
Stande Christi, Beilage, p. 196 fT., being a review of Thomasius' Beitrage. He
says, p. 201: Kurz ich sehe nichtein, wie das Trinitatsdogma bestehen kann mit
der vorgeschlagenen Korrektur {i. e. the rectification of the old Lutheran Chris-
tology by the Thomasian doctrine of kenosis). But the opinion is not supported
by argument.

1 66 The Humiliation of CJirist.

and to give such a view of the person of Christ as shall al-
low His humanity to remain in all its historical truth. The
former aim is very apparent in the Christological utter-
ances of the father of modern kenosis, Zinzendorf.^ The

J celebrated founder of the Moravian brotherhood went great
lengths in the assertion of Christ's likeness to His brethren.

I Living in a time when men were ashamed of the humilia-
tion of Christ, and gave prominence only to what was ra-
tional and intelligible, and in a worldly sense respectable,
in Christianity, he deemed it his vocation to glory in Christ's
passion, and to assert with all possible emphasis the Incar-
nation as a lowering of Himself in love, on the part of God
the Son, to the level of humanity. This self-lowering he
represented as taking place to such an extent, that Ben-
gel, with every desire to give an impartial account of his
doctrinal system, spoke of him as a new Unitarian, who,
while differing widely from other Unitarians, in assigning
to the Son not only a place in the Trinity, but a monopoly
of divine functions, creation, redemption, and sanctifica-
tion, came by so much the nearer to them on the other
side, as one who journeys towards the east, going as far as
he can, at length comes round to the west.^ Jesus, ac-
cording to Zinzendorf, while never ceasing to be God, was
in all matters to be considered as a simple man; and all
our comfort is to be derived from His humanity, viewed not
only as like us in its weakness, but as characterized by a
maximum of weakness, so that the most miserable creature
can think of Christ as weaker than himself. The Son of
God incarnate thought of Himself as a man ; if the thought,
" I am God," entered into His mind, it was only in transitu,
as a man of thirty years may remember, in a dream, some-
thing he had said or done when a child of two or three
years. ^ Thus far did He carry the business of self-empty-
ing; and in carrying it so far, He but glorified His love.
For the greatest thing in the Saviour was not His God-
head, or His majesty, or His miracles, but His becoming
freely so liitle.* Thus thought the Saviour Himself before

• See Appendix, Note G.

* Abriss der so genannten Brudergemeine, pp. 28-41.
3 Plitt, Zinzendorf s Theologie DargestcUt, Zweiter Band, p. 171.
< Ibid. p. 161, where he quotes from Zinzendorf a passage respecting the sui^

Modem Kenotic Theories. 167

He came in the flesh. He esteemed it a favour conferred
on Him by His Father to be permitted to become man, that
He might die for a sinful world. Yea, He reckoned it an
additional favour, that, in order to become man, it was
necessary that He should go out of the Godhead, and at
least for an hour, for a moment, know what it is to be God-
forsaken.^ In more recent writers we miss both the elo-
quence and the extravagance characteristic of Zinzendorf,
in proclaiming the most thoroughgoing kenosis as the glori-
fication of divine love. Modern kenosists are influenced
much more by the scientific than by the religious interest,
which in the case of Zinzendorf was the supreme, if not
the exclusive, object of consideration. Nevertheless, even
with regard to the former, there is truth in the remark of
Dorner, that the Christology of which Zinzendorf may be
regarded as the forerunner, represents a religious trait, viz.
the desire to conceive the divine Love as having become
as like to, as intimately united with, men as possible.^
And in this respect the Christology in question, under any
of its forms, commends itself to our sympathy. It is im-
possible not to have a kindly feeling towards a Christolog-
ical theory which is earnestly bent on making the exina-
nition of the Son of God a great sublime moral reality. An
error is readily pardoned in a theory animated by such an
evangelic aim. Even when the resulting view of Christ's
person wears a suspicious resemblance to that given in the
Socinian theory, we are conscious of a sympathy with the
one which we cannot have for the other. We remember
that the kenotic Christ, however like the Socinian in other
respects, is the result of an act of free grace, on the part of
a Divine Being emptying Himself of His divinity as far as
possible, in order that He might become flesh and dwell

prise of contemporaries, at seeing a people (the brethren) to whom the greatest
thing in Christ was, that He became so little (das ihnen das GrOsste ist, dass der
Heiland so klein gewesen ist).

' Piitt, i. p. 272: Die Concession, die Willigkeit des Vaters, dass der Sohn hat
kOnnen Mensch warden, dass er hat kOnnen sein Leben lassen, das ist das Prasent
das ihm der Vater gethan hat. Er sieht es als eine neue Gnade an, dass er hat
dijrfen, um iVIensch zu werden, aus der Gottheit herausgehen und zum wenigsten
eine Stunde, einen Augenblick erfahren, was das heisset, von Gott verlassen sein.

2 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 258.

1 68 The Humiliation of Christ.

among men full of grace and truth. The historical phe-
nomenon may be to a large extent the same in either sys-
tem, but the moral and theological significance of the phe-
nomenon is toto coelo different. The Christ of the kenosis
is God self-humbled to man's level; the Socinian Christ is
man exalted to the highest human level. The conceptions
of the Deity cherished by the two systems are equally
diverse. The God of the one system is self-sacrificing love;
the God of the other system is a Being who cannot descend
from the altitude of His metaphysical majesty.^

The scientific aim of this theory is equally entitled to
respect, its declared purpose being to reconcile the doc-
trine of Christ's person with the facts of the gospel history;
or more definitely, so to conceive the Incarnation, as to
leave room for a real progressive human development, in-
tellectually and morally, not less than physically. This
purpose all Christological theories profess to keep in view,
and all have tried in one way or another to satisfy its re-
quirements. The attempts have been varied in their nature,
but all have involved a more or less distinct recognition of
the need of a kenosis of some kind on the part of the Logos,
in order that the truth of Christ's humanity may remain
imimpaired. Irenaeus taught a rest or quiescence of the
Logos in connection with the temptations, crucifixion, and
death of Christ; " Ambrose spoke of the Logos withdraw-
ing Himself from activity," that He might be subject to
infirmity.^ Hilary conceived of the Logos incarnate as
having exchanged the form of God for the form of a servant,
and in the assumed form tempering Himself to conformity
with the human habit, lest the infirmity of the assumed
nature should be unable to bear the power and infinitude
of the divine nature.* Even Cyril, while rejecting a meta-

1 Ritschl characterizes the kenotic theory as verschatnter Socinianismus.

2 D.6mp yap r]v avQpooitoi, 'iva TteipadB-^, ovroo nai Xoyo'i, 'iva
So^a66yi- r/dv]((xZovroi jitiv rov Xoyov Iv vaj 7tEipdtl,E6()ai . . . nai
6ravpov6Bai, nai ditoBvi^dnEiv. Contra Hacreses, lib. iii. cap. xix. 3.

=• Exinanivit se, hoc est, potestatem suam ab opera retraxit, ut huniiliatus otiosa
virtute infirmari videretur. — Comtnent. in Epistolam ad Philipp.

* In forma, Dei.manens formam servi assumpsit, noii demutatus sed se ipsum
exinaniens, et intra se latens, et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem; dum se
usque ad formam temperat habitus humani, ne potentem immensamque naturam

Modern Kenoiic Theories. 169

morphic Incarnation, kenosis in that sense being, in his
view, excluded by the durivcaoii ascribed by the evangeHst
to the incarnate Logos, in the same text in which he rep-
resents Plim as becoming flesh, ^ nevertheless did homage
to the demands of the kenosis, by admitting that the super-
human endowments of the man Jesus must at all events be
carefully concealed, that He might at least seem to be what
in truth He was not, and wear to spectators the guise and
fashion of a child, a boy, and a man, while His inward habit
was that of a God.^ The Lutherans yielded reluctant
obedience to the requirements of history, by ascribing to
the man Christ Jesus a possession without use of divine
attributes; Avhile the Reformed, on the other hand, made
room for growth and experience in the life of the Saviour,
by so conceiving of the union of natures, that the human
nature should not be overlaid or swallowed up by the
divine.' In recent times the pressure of the problem haw
been felt more heavily than ever; and men of all schools,
believing in the doctrine of the Trinity, have been of one
mind as to the necessity of such a construction of Christ's
person as, while Recognising His Godhead, shall nowise
infringe on the integrity and full reality of His humanity.
All, as already remarked,* have not followed the same
method in the work of reconstruction. Some are content
with the old Reformed theory carefully re-stated in the
light of modern requirements, teaching a duality, not in
the conscioiisncss of the God-man, but in the life of the
Logos; distributing the mens duplex between the Logos
as a person in the Trinity and the concrete God-man, so
far as that divine person exhibits and develops Himself
in Jesus in a human manner, or as a human individual, being
the life principle of this man, sustaining Him, conditioning
His existence and personality, dwelling in Him by the

assumptae hiimilitatis tion ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtue incircmnscripta
moderaretur, in quantum oporteret earn usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corporis
obedire. De Trinitate, lib. xi. 48. The exchange of forms, tliough not taught
here, is asserted in other passages; see Appendix, Note A, Lect. i.; also Thoma-
sius, ii. p. 172 sqq. Thomasius, without good ground, claims Hilary as a sup-
porter of kenosis in his own sense.

' See Appendix, Note G. 2 gee Lecture ii.

» See Lecture iii. * See p. 136.

170 The Himiiliation of Christ.

Holy Spirit.' Others teach what may be called a gradual
Incarnation, conceiving of the union as at first compara-
tively outward and dissoluble, gradually becoming more
intimate as the human development of Jesus progressed,
till at length, after the resurrection, the Logos and the
man became absolutely one, " — a view in some respects
having close affinity to the one previously described; the

' So Sclineckenburger, Vom doppeltcn Stande Chrisii, p. 218: Anstatt jener
Lutherischen Spaltung der menschlichen Natur in ihre illokale und lokale Sub-
sislenz, vielmehr in die Lebensausserung der gOttlichen eine Distinktion fallt, wo-
nach die mens duplex sich eigenllich veitlieilt an den Logos, sofern er Person der
Tiinitat ist, und den conkreten Gottmenschen, sofern sich in Jesus jene Person
menschlich, d. h. als menschliches Individuum darstellt und entwickelt. Der Lof^os
totiis extra Jesiun ist die seciinda persona trinilatis als solche, mit der scientia
personalis, der Logos totus m yesu ist dieselbe alles durchdringende und bele-
bende gOtlliche Hypostase, sofern sie Lebensprincip dieses Individuums ist, des
Gottmensclien, dessen individuelles Bevvusstsein nicht sclilechthin Alles umfasst.
I^ebensprincip dieses Lidividuum ist der Logos, weil er hominem yesitin siistentat,
sein Dasein und Personsein absolut bedingt, ihm gratiose inwohnt durch den hei-
ligen Geist. Sclineckenburger speaks of the Reformed theory, so stated, as satis-
fying pretty much the Dornerian desiderata, and says that the Reformed thean-
thropic life-development is the normal human development of Him who, on
account of His unique intimate relation to the Logos (who is the ground of all
/ational being), is the God-man.

' ^ So Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 250, where
Jj^e states his own view in opposition to the kenotic theory: "On the only other
possible view (other than the kenotic), we can merely speak of a limitation of the
self-communication of the Logos to humanity, not of a lessening or reduction of
the Logos Himself. The being and actuality of the Logos remained unchanged ;
but Jesus possessed the being and actuality of the Logos in virtue of the unio,
Tierely so fa,r as was compatible with the truth of the human growth. For this
.eason the eternal personality of the Logos did not immediately, and ere there
was a human consciousness, become ^\vme.-JmmanV "On this view the object
of the volition of the Logos is, in the first instance, solely the production of a
divine-human nature, not a divine-human person." The union is ^'■jiot completely
accomplished nnXW the personality of the Logos also became dWme-huinan, through
the coming into existence of a human consciousness able to be appropriated and
able also itself to appropriate." Further on, Dorner refers to Origen's doctrine
oizn etifrnal generation of the Son, as analogous to this doctrine of a gradual
Incarnation, one "constantly growing and reproducing itself on the basis of the
being." He then adds, by way of explaining this idea: "At the centre of His
\)e.\a<f, it is true, this man is from the beginning divine-human essence: but many
things are yet lacking to this person; other things in it are still dissolubly united

for example, the body is still rportal; other things are still mutable, without

detriment to its identity. The (iiyii>£-huuian articulation, the bodily and the spir-
itual organism of the divine-human person, needs first to be developed " (p. 258).
The idea is, that the physical tinio is a riipmentary act, but its effects, physical
and moral, are only gradually worked out.

Modern Kenotic TheoiHes. 171

main difference being, that in the Reformed theory the
Logos consciousness never becomes absolutely coincident
with the human consciousness of Christ, the distinction
between the Logos toUis extra Jesiim and the Logos totiis
in Jesii being eternally valid, while in the other theory
the ultimatum or goal is an absolute identity, in the old
Lutheran sense, between the divine and the human — the
divine become wholly human, and the human wholly divine;
and the Lutheran axiom, Logos 11011 extra carneni, being
realized in the eternal, as it could not be in the earthly
state. The advocates of kenosis, in the sense of depoten-
tiation, total or partial, are not satisfied with either of those
schemes, and therefore they bring forward their own. And
they are quite entitled to do so, and it is our duty to listen
to them, not refusing to hear on the ground that the spec-
ulation is idle, that there is no problem to solve, no need
for any new attempt to answer the question. How can
Christ be God without at the same time ceasing to be man .-*
We may indeed enter on the study of this new theory with
a suspicion that it will turn out a failure, yea, with a rooted
conviction that all theories whatsoever will break down;
only believing firmly that Christ is both God and man, and
determined that no theory, orthodox or heterodox, old or
new, shall rob us of our faith in either of the factors which
constitute our Lord's mysterious person, and using our
critical faculties mainly to protect ourselves against such a
result. In that case, we shall come to the task of examin-
ing the latest Christological speculation in the orthodox
interest, with very moderate expectation of new light.
But our examiination need not on this account be careless,
prejudiced, or contemptuous, as if the interests of science,
as distinct from those of faith, had already been fully sat-
isfied, and all further theorizing, or theological inquiry on
the matter, were a simple impertinence.

3. One other general observation remains to be made
with reference to the kenotic theory, viz., that it does not
seem advisable to dispose of it in a summary manner, by
g. priori reasoning from the divine unchangeableness. This
attribute, doubtless, offers a very tempting short road to
the refutation of a theory which we have previously made

172 The H2tiniliatio}i of Christ.

up our minds not to believe. It is very easy for one, taking
his stand at that point, to ask imposing and formidable
questions. Is this so-called kenosis metaphysically pos-
sible.'* can the almighty God depotentiate Himself .-^ can
the infinite One limit Himself.-' can the omniscient One
reduce Himself to the state of a mere human germ, without
knowledge, or even so much as self-consciousness .'' For
my part, I do not care to ask such questions; I am not in-
clined to dogmatize on what is possible or impossible for
God: I think it best to keep the mind clear of too decided
prepossessions on such matters. It appears to me not very
safe to indulge in a priori reasonings from divine attributes,
and especially from divine unchangeableness. It is wiser
in those who believe in revelation to be ready to believe
that God can do anything that is not incompatible with
His moral nature, to refuse to allow metaphysical difficulties
to stand as insuperable obstacles in the way of His gracious
purposes, and sw far to agree with the advocates of the
kenosis as to hold that He can descend and empty Him-
self to the extent love requires. For a. priori reasoning
from divine attributes, besides being liable to a charge of
presumption, is apt to be dangerous. We may put weapons
into the hands of foes to be wielded with fatal effect against
doctrines dear to our hearts. What if the attribute of
unchangeableness should be brought to bear against the
Incarnation itself ! What if men should begin to ask such
1 questions as these: " If God be unchangeable, how can He
\ become flesh } If God be essentially unlimited, how can
He so subject Himself to the limitations of the humanity
of Christ, as in Him to be really with us .'' " ^ How is
Strauss to be answered when he argues: "A God who
performs single acts is certainly a person, but not the Ab-
solute. Turning Himself from one act to another, or now
exercising a certain kind of activity — the extraordinary —
anon allowing it to rest, He does and is in one moment,
what He neither does nor is in another, and so falls alto-
gether under the category of the changeable, the temporal,
the finite " } Here are creation, providence, incarnation,

' Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 65, with reference
to the views taught by Cyril concerning the divine immutability.

Modern KenoHc Theories. 173

miracles, demolished by a single stroke of resistless a priori
logic, reasoning with unhesitating assurance from the at-
tribute of immutability. The}^ that take the sword shall
perjsh with the sword; therefore let believers in these and
kindred revealed truths put up again the two-edged sword
of a priori reasoning into his place, and be content to try
current theories by humbler and more patient methods,
mindful what obstacles every Christian truth has encoun-
tered in its way to a place in the established creed of
the Church, arising out of speculative presuppositions and
prepossessions.

In this spirit, then, I proceed now to make some critical-
observations upon the theory in question, some of these
bemg But repetitions or expansions of objections stated by
German theologians, who have not seen their way to give
the kenotic hypothesis their unqualified approval.

I. First of all, there is a great initial difficulty to be got
over. According to the Thomasian theory the Incarnation
involves at once an act of assumption and an act of self-
limitation; the two acts, distinct in thought, being coin-
cident in time, and simply different aspects of one and the
same act. Now the difficulty is, that these two phases
show the same act in what seem contradictory lights, at
once as an assertion and a deposition of divine power. The
Incarnation, as assumption of human nature on the part of
the Logos, is an exercise of omnipotence; as self-limitation,
on the other hand, it is the loss of omnipotence. One act
of will has contrary effects; one effect being the creation
of the human nature; the other, the entire waste or dissi-
pation of force in the act of creation. Are such contrary
effects of one act of will compatible } ^ And why should
this particular act of creation be followed with the extinc-
tion or absorption of creative force, any more than that by
"which the Logos brought into being the world at large, or
the first man ? Is the difference due to the fact that the

1 SchTieckenburger, V^oin doppclten Stands Christi, p. 214: Eine und diesclbe
VVillensthat, deren Effekt eine gOttliche iibernatOrliche Machtausserung, assumption
und ziigleich eine iibernaturliche Machtentleerung ware, ist der vollendete Wider-
>;pruch, der sich nur halten kann, wenn die Entleerung zu einer quasi-exinatiitio
gemacht wird.

T74 The Htmtiliation of Christ.

product in this case is personally united to the producer ?
Then we are landed in a heathenish view of the Incarna-
tion, according to which matter is accredited with power to
reduce even Deity united to it to a state of impotence;
and the kenosis ceases to be a voluntary act of self-
depotentiation, except in the sense that the Logos freely
resolves to bring Himself into contact with a creature
which, He knows beforehand, will of necessity absorb all
His divine energy/ It might, indeed, seem a very easy way
out of these difficulties to make the kenosis and the assump-
tion two really and temporally separate acts, either of
the same actor or of different actors. The Incarnation
might be conceived of in one or other of two ways. Either
/* thus: the Logos fully depotentiated Himself; then the Holy
Spirit did what the depotentiated Logos was no longer
able to do — created a human nature, consisting of a body
and a soul, and united this creation to the depotentiated
Logos. On this hypothesis there is no assumption, but
only a union between the Logos become incapable of such
an act, and a human nature, effected by the Holy Ghost;
and the thing united to the Logos is not merely a human
nature, but a complete human being. ^ Or thus: the Logos
first partially depotentiated Himself, leaving Himself enough
power to create and assume human nature, and then the
process of depotentiation was consummated when the union
had been effected.^ On this hypothesis, however, there
arises, for a moment at least, that very dualism which the
kenotic theory is intended to get rid of — a self-conscious

' Schneckenburger, /. c, adduces against the ascription of the absorbtive power
to the nature of the hvwfXEvov (the human nature), the fact that, in the union
with the assumed nature, the Logos ultimately becomes active and potent again,
when the kenosis is at an end. He compares the depotentiation of the Logos,
which, according to Thomasius, takes place in connection with the Licarnation,
to the loss of consciousness sustained by God, according to Lenau's expressicm,
"in the rush of creation." Etwa so wie, nach Lenau's Ausdruck, Gott im SchOp-
fungsrausch das Bewusstsein verloren haben soil, wiirde des Logos in As.sumti-
onsakt seine Gottheit bis zum minhmmi, jedenfalls bis zur Eewusstlosigkeit
trschOpft und eingebusst haben.

Si Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande, pp. 212, 213. Of this hypothesis
Schneckenburger remarks: "und so haben wir einerseits die reformirte Lehre,
andrerseits noch ein Haretisches zu der reformirten Lehre hinzu, namlich das e«
6vo q)v6£ooy, die assumptio hominis, nicht naturae humanae,"

3 Ibid. p. 212.

Modern Kenotic Theories. 175

and potent, if not omnipotent, Logos united to a human
foetus, and freely resolving to depotentiate Himself still
further, even completely, in order that His state may be
perfectly congruous to that of the nature He has assumed.
2. Assuming theinitial difficulty to have been surmounted,
other difficulties confront us in connection with the in-
carnate state. One is, that the kenosis reduces the Logos
to a state of helpless passivity or impotence. Thomasius,
indeed, endeavours to meet this objection by the remark
that " Potenz " does not signify something impotent or
empty, but fulness concentrated in itself, withdrawn from
the circumference of manifestation indeed, yet present in
the centre, and having power over itself^ But the question
is: has this " Potenz " power at will to radiate forth to the
circumference of manifestation in action, or is it under a
necessity of remaining at the centre confined to a mere
mathematical point ? If the former alternative be adopted,
as it is by Ebrard,'^ then there is really no depotentiation,
as Ebrard consistently holds, but only a change in the mode
of manifesting and exercising power. If the latter alterna-
tive be adopted, as it is in the frankest manner by Gess,^ then
" Potenz," in spite of the protest of Thomasius, is practically
equivalent to impotence. And Thomasius virtually admits
this, by representing the development of Christ as taking
place under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. He quotes
with approval an observation of Kahnis, that the miracles
of Christ proved, not His divine nature, but His divine
mission; and while not denying them to be expressions of
an indwelling power, yet he speaks of them as wrought at
the bidding and with the assistance of the Father, and
through the medium of the Holy Ghost.* In like manner
does he account for Christ's knowledge of the divine. That
knowledge, we are told, Christ got in no human school; in
virtue of His union with the Father, He saw His eternal
thoughts, not as one who received them by revelation, but
through His own immediate intuition. But at the same
time it is • admitted that these divine thoughts came
gradually to Christ's consciousness through the mediation

• See p. 143. 2 See p. 152. 3 See p. 146.

* Christi Person und Werk, ii. p. 250.

176 The Hiwiiliation of Christ.

of the Holy Spirit; though an effort is made to lessen the
importance of the admission by the further statement, that
this growth in knowledge, under the education of the Spirit,
was but the development of what lay hid in the depths of
His own being.^ Now what is the consequence of this
passivity of the Logos, reluctantly admitted by Thomasius,
more frankly conceded by Gess ? It is this, that in the
Thomasian theory the depotentiated Logos associated with
a human soul seems superfluous; it would make little
difference though He were not there; ^ and that in the
Gessian theory, the Logos, become a human soul, is
allowed no benefit from His antecedents, the divine ele-
ments fall into abeyance so completely, that His sinless-
ness and His consciousness of personal identity are rendered
all but unaccountable; insomuch that if Jesus had happened
to be a Greek instead of a Jew, without the benefit of the
Hebrew Scriptures, He c-ould not have known who He was
by the way of a truly human development — in other words,
without a miraculous revelation.

3. But this passivity of the depotentiated Logos involves
another consequence, which constitutes a third difficulty in
the way of accepting the kenotic theory, at least in its
Thomasian and Gessian forms. By one act of self-depoten-
tiation, the Logos is reduced to such a state of impotence,
that His kenosis becomes a matter of physical necessity,
not of loving free-will. The love which moved the Son of
God to become man consumed itself at one stroke. There
is a breach of continuity in the mind which gave rise to the
Incarnation. A mighty impulse of free self-conscious love
constrained the eternal Son to descend into humanity, and
in the descent that love lost itself for years; till at length
the man Jesus found out the secret of His birth, and. the
sublime spirit of self-sacrifice to which it owed its origin,

1 Christi Person unci IVerk, ii. p. 237.

s See Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 254: " Nay more, on such a supposition the
Incarnation of tlie Logos is of no advantage whatever to the humanity. It does
not allow the Logos to communicate Himself in ever-increasing measure, and so
as to direct the development of the man assumed. . . . Consequently, the hypoth-
esis of a self-depotentiation of the Logos . . . renders it necessary to look out for
another pruiciple than the Logos, to wit, the Holy Ghost, to conduct the growth
of the God-man" (so, for example, with Thomasius and Hofmann).

Modern Kenotic Theories. ijj

and made that spirit His own, said Amen to the mind which
took shape in the kenosis/ and resolved thenceforth to act
on it, and so reunited the broken thread of personal identity.
On this view, the Logos had no acquaintance with some of
the most interesting stages in the experience of Christ. He
knew what it was to be conceived in the Virgin's womb, or
rather to resolve that He should be; for by the time the
fact was accomplished, He was no longer conscious; and
He knew what it was to be tempted in the wilderness, and
to endure the contradiction of sinners during His ministry,
and to die; for by the time these experiences came to Jesus,
He had ascertained who He was. But the Logos knew not
what it was to be an infant in the cradle, or on His mother^s
breast; what it was to be a boy subject to His parents; what
to grow in wisdom as in stature; what to be an apprentice
carpenter: for in those years He was asleep — unconscious.
Therefore with infants, children, and youths He has not
learned to sympathize; only with full-grown tempted men
has His experience fitted Him to have a fellow-feeling.'
On this account, one desiderates a way of making the Logos
accommodate Himself to the human development other-
wise than by depotentiation, that His love may not appear
exhausted by a single act, and that the initial act of sym-
pathy may not disqualify Him for entering sympathetically
into all the experiences of human life — those of the first
thirty, not less than those of the last three years of Christ's

' Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande^ p. 204, i-epresents Reinhard as
teachiii;^ a nachtragUche Genehmigiing on the part of the man Jesus, of the '
exinanitio to which, accordmg to the old Lutheran- theory, He was a party from
the moment of conception. The humanity of Christ unconsciously divested itself
of divine properties at the conception, and consciously consented to the act on
reaching maturity, somewhat as a Christian homologates the vows to which he
was unconsciously a party at his baptism. In the same way the modern kenosists
are shut up by their theory to an ex post facto homologation by the man Jesus
of the original act of kenosis which resulted in the Incarnation.

* Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 253: "The truth of the kenosis of the Logos is the
love which stirred in Him in eternity, in virtue of which He condescends to the
creatures who stand in need and are susceptible of Him, that He may know what
is theirs and communicate what is His. But the kenosis of self-depotentiation fails
to perform that at which it aims. For if the Logos has given up His eternal self-
conscious Being, where is His love during that time ? Love without ?e!f-conscious-
ness is an impossibility." Dorner further questions the necessity of this "unethical
sacrifice of Himself."

178 The Humiliation of Christ.

earthly history. Is this impossible ? In the words of
Dorner, " Is it impossible for the Logos to acquire power
over the central susceptibility of humanity which He finds
in Jesus, and to belong to it in a unique manner, save by
ceasing to stand in any actual relation to others ? or save
by reducing Himself to a level of equality with this man ? " ^
4. The Thomasian form of the kenotic theory is open to
objection with reference to the personal unity. It teaches
the presence in Christ of two life centres, the depotentiated
Logos and the human soul. Now this doctrine is in
danger of being impaled on one or other of the horns of
the following dilemma. Either these two life centres are
"homogeneous magnitudes" or they are riot. .If they are
not, then a dualism ensues in the consciousness of the
God-man, and the depotentiation of the Logos has taken
place in vain; for the very object of that depotentiation
was to exclude dualism. Such a dualism can be escaped
only by a perfect equality of the two life centres in spirit-
ual endowment. The two yoke-fellows must draw equally
and keep pace, else the course of the human development
will be other than smooth and harmonious. If, on the
other hand, the two life centres be homogeneous, then the
unity of self-consciousness may indeed be secured; but
only with the effect of raising the question: To what pur-
pose this duality in the life basis .-* Why two human
souls to do the work of one .'' for, ex hypothcsi, the depo-
tentiated Logos is to all intents and purposes a human
soul. Instead of this roundabout process, according to
which the Logos first reduces Himself to the dimensions
of a human soul, and then associates with Himself another
human soul, why not say at once the Logos became a
human soul .'' On the Thomasian theory, the depotentiated
Logos, or, if you will, the human soul of Christ, is degraded
from the position of a necessary constituent of the person-
ality to that of a dispensable ornament. The two life
centres, the self-reduced Logos and the human soul, are
like the two eyes or the two ears of a man. As the
sensations of both organs coalesce in one mental act of
perception, the duality of the organs does not produce

' Domer, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 254.

Modern Kenotic Theories. 179

any duality of consciousness, while it adds to the symmetry
and grace of the person; but on the other hand, it is not
necessary to the act of perception, one eye or ear being
able to do the work of the two.^

This being the state of the case as regards the Thoma-
sian form of the kenotic hypothesis, it is not surprising that
the preponderance of opinion, among theologians of the
same Christological school, should be decidedly in favour
of the metamorphic form of the theory, which gets rid of
the duality of life centres by representing the Logos as
undergoing conversion into, or as taking the place and
performing the function of, a human soul. This form of
the theory now invites our attention.

5. The metamorphic theory of Christ's person, as ex-
pounded by Gess, is liable to two grave objections. One
of these has reference to the power which this theory gives
to the flesh of the incarnate Logos to determine His
condition. The text, " the Word became flesh," means,
that the flesh and blood which he assumed became in this
union a determining power for the Logos. The Incar-
nation signifies the subjection of Deity to the dominion of
matter. Contact with flesh is fatal to the free, conscious
life of God; it is a plunge into a Lethe stream, which
involves loss of self-consciousness, and therewith of the
divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipres-
ence, and even of eternal holiness. It is true these
attributes are in the metamorphosed Logos in a state of
rest; but it is a rest out of which they cannot return until
the Logos wakens up to self-consciousness, and that waken-
ing does not take place fully till death has delivered the
imprisoned Deity from the bondage of His mortal corrupti-
ble body. " Not in entire forgetfulness," indeed, did the
Son of God pass His life on earth previous to His passion.

'■ On this objection to the Thomasian theory, see Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. pp.
2SS> 256. Dorner says: " It does not even help the question of the unity of the
divine and human, unless we should say that the depotentiation was in itself Incar-
nation, that is, conversion into a human existence. ... If, however, no conver-
sion be supposed to have taken place, and yet the kenosis be assumed for the pur-
pose of the tinio ... we should have nothing but two homogeneous magnitudes
in or alongside of each other, . . . and the result arrived at resembles a duplica-
tion of one and the same, through which the one or the ether s rendered useless."

t8o The Humiliation of Christ.

By instinct, by perusal of the Scriptures, by close commun-
ion with His Father, Jesus had found out who He was by
the time He began His public ministry; and the conclusion
at which He had arrived by these means was, or at least
may possibly have been, confirmed by flashes of recollec-
tion lighting up the darkness of the incarnate state, and
for a moment revealing the heavens whence He had come,
f But not till He tasted death did He perfectly recover pos-
session of Himself Then the bound powers of Godhead
were immediately, and we may say ipso facto, released from
the enslavement of matter. For though our author speaks
of Jesus after His death as made alive in the spirit by the
Father,^ this is only a convenient use of Scripture language
to express the idea that death itself gave Him back His
life in all its native energy. Death, so to speak, disen-
gaged the divine power of the Logos, which had been
reduced to a latent state by entrance into connection with
matter, somewhat as heat applied to water disengages the
j latent force of steam. Depotentiated at His conception in
' the Virgin's womb, the incarnate Logos became repotenti-
' ated at His death, so that He was able to raise His own
body from the grave, and transform it into a fit organ for
the manifestation of His recovered life in all its fulness —
transform it at once, per saltiim, not gradually; for a
body retaining any particle of gross materiality could not
be a fit companion for the Logos returned to Himself, but
would onl}^ bring Him again, partially at least, into a state
of most unseasonable bondage. '^

The other grave difficulty besetting the Gessian theory
is, that it ensures the reality of Christ's human experience

' lyie Lehre von der Person C/iristi, p. 379: Nach der Todtung am Fleisch
Ward Jesus von dem Vater kbendig gemacht am Geist, und nachdem erim Geiste
den Geistern im Gefangniss geprediget hatte, ward sein im Graba liegender Leib
von ihm selbst wieder aufgerichtet, sein im Tode hingegebenes Leben von ihm
selbst wieder hingenommen.

2 Die Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 379. In the above remarks I have
given not Gess' own words, but what I regard as the legitimate outcome of his
theory. He teaches an immediate transformation of the risen body, and I suggest
a reason naturally arising out of his theory for holding that doctrine. With regard
to the Ascension, Gess remarks: Die Himmelfahrt ist fijr die Leiblichkeit Jesu
nicht der Emtritt einer neuen Epoche, sic ist nur das letzte um der Junger willen
in feierlicher Auffahrt geschehende Scheiden des Auferstandenen. P. 380.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i8i

in a way which imperils the end of the Incarnation, viz.,
the redemption of sinners, for which it is indispensable
that the Redeemer Himself should be free from sin. This
theory is so thoroughly in earnest with the conversion of
the Logos into a human soul, that it quite consistently
treats sin as a real possibility for Jesus. And while, of
course, all who advocate this theory agree in believing that,
as a matter of fact, the possibility did not become actual, I
do not think they succeed in giving any good reason for
the fact. The risk of moral evil appearing in the life of
Jesus is not duly provided against. All that Gess has to
say is, that God foreknew that the man Jesus would not fall
into sin, and therefore was willing that the risk should be
run.^ That is, the chances might be ten, a hundred, a
million to one, against the preservation of sinlessness, but
God foresaw that the barely possible would happen, there-
fore He decreed that the Incarnation should take place.
This is simply giving up the problem as insoluble; a remark
applicable also to the Schleiermacherian method of securing
the sinlessness of Christ, viz., by a determinism which ex-
cludes real moral freedom, i.e. by physical force. Other
supporters of the kenotic theory, seeing the unsatisfactori-
ness of leaving the vital matter of the Saviour's moral
perfection to the chapter of accidents, or, what comes to
the same thing, to the power of an unethical necessity,
have sought a solution of the problem in the remanent
divinity of the Logos incarnate. Liebner, for example,
while apparently agreeing with Gess in making the Son
of God, entered into " Werden," take the place of a
human soul, insists on ascribing to the incarnate Son
a large superhuman, superadamitic element.^ He will
not have Christ be regarded as a human being put,
by His immaculate conception, in the same position
as Adam before the fall, capable of being either good
or evil, and having used His freedom well, exhibiting
in His person as an individual saint the character of a
normally developed Adam.* He will have us understand

• See p. 149. 2 See Appendix, Note B.

3 Christologie, p. 318: Es giebt einen gewissen hOheren Ebionisnuis, dem es
nur auf eineu einzelnen Heiligen ankommt, und dem daher Christus nur wieder

1 82 The Humiliation of Christ.

that, being the Logos incarnate, Christ could not but live
a holy life; for this among other reasons, because His exist-
ence in this world was preceded by an ethical being In
the eternal world, of which He had the benefit in His
earthly career. Now this may be true as a matter of fact,
but in proportion as it is true, is, if not the reality of
Christ's moral experience as a man, at least its similarity
to that of other men, compromised. And in general it may
be remarked in reference to kenotic theories of the Gessian
type, that they seemed doomed to oscillate between Apol-
linarism and Ebionitism. Either they make the Logos, qua
human soul, not human enough or too human. Either
they retain for the Logos a little of His divinity to carry
Him safely through His curriculum of temptation, or, com-
pelling Him to part with all but His metaphysical essence,
they reduce Him strictly to Adam's level, and expose Him
to Adam's risks.^

6. In the form given to it by Ebrard, the kenotic theory
certainly does not err by making Christ too much of a man.
The Christ presented to us under this type, as has been re-
marked by a recent German writer, wears the aspect of a
middle Being^ — neither God nor man, but more the former
than the latter. He retains all His divine attributes, only
not in the absolute form suited to the eternal mode of ex-
istence, but in the applied form suited to existence in time;
and, retaining these attributes in applied form. He assumes
flesh, and is found in fashion as a man. One's first thought
\s that such a Being is a man only in appearance; but

der normal entwickelte Adam ist. Aber Chiistus muss sowohl auf der persOn-
lichen, als auf der Naturseite zugleich von Adam unterschieden warden. Es bedarf
mehr als nur des normal entwickelten Adam, es bedarf eines AUbefreiers, eines
universalen und centralen Hauptes.

' Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 431, while disapproving of the kenotic
theory, indicates a certain favour for Gess. Referring to Gess' claim to have ar-
rived at his conclusion by the study of the Scriptures, he remarks: "There is
ground for this self-congratulation of the author, for his book is far more scriptural
in its treatment of the subject than any other book of the same class with which
we are acquainted. It calls for a thorough review and candid criticism." Hodge's
acquaintance with the kenotic literature seems to have been superficial and frag-
mentary.

2 NOsgen, Christits der Mcnschen- itnd Gottessohn, Gotha, 1869, p. 235: " Eb-
rard's Auffassung macht Christum zu einem menschlich-gOttlichen Mittelwesen."

Modern Kejiotic Theories. i8

Ebrard stoutly denies that his theory lays him open to a
charge of doketism. The Logos, retaining His divine
properties in their altered form, does not exceed the di-
mensions of humanity. His endowments, indeed, far ex-
ceed those of man in his present degenerate state, but they
are nothing more than the realization of the ideal of hu*
manity. Christ is simply the sinless, pleromatic, wonder-
working man, exercising dominion over the laws of nature
as depraved by sin. Through the Incarnation of the Son
of God was given a man who, as to His will, was in the
state of integrity, like Adam before the fall; who, as to His
natural gifts, bore within Him all the powers of humanity,
which lay as undeveloped germs in the first federal head of
the race, like a sun gathering these up into Himself as con-
centrated radii of a complete all-sided development; and
who, as to His power, stood exalted as Lord over the laws
of the depraved order of nature.' This man was neither
more nor less than the ideal man, the head of the human race,
in whom the organism of humanity found its unity; If it be
objected that, according to this doctrine, man and God
are practically one, our author replies: Even so, that is the
eternal truth of the matter. He holds that it was the
eternal purpose of God, altogether irrespective of the en-
trance of sin into the world, that on the one hand God
ihould enter into time by becoming man, and that on
the other hand man should rise to the full realization of
his ideal in becoming God, and attaining to dominion over
the laws of nature, over the objects of knowledge, and over
space, such as we see exemplified in the applied omnipo-
tence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Christ.^ There-
fore Christ, even in His miracles, in His penetration into
the secrets of the future, in His power to transport Himself

' Dogmatik, ii. 32: Durch die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes war also
gec;eben ein Mensch der {a) was sein Wollen betraf, im stat. integr. stand, d.
h. sich, wie Adam vor dem Fall, frei entscheiden konnte fur gut oder bOs; (b) was
sein NATviRLiCHE Begabung betraf, alle Krafte der Menschheit, die in dem ersten
Slammvaler Adam, unentwickelt, keimartig, lagen, als zusammengehende Radien
des voUendetcn, allseitigen Entwickelung sonnenhaft in sich trug; (c) was sein
KONXEN betraf, schlechthin erhaben und herrschend iiber den Gesetzen der de-
pravirten Naturordnung stand.
2 Vid. Appendix, Note D.

184 The Hiimiliatioii of CJu^ist.

at will from one place to another, was not superhuman,
but only ideally human. In these acts of applied omnipo-
tence, omniscience, and omnipresence, He was at once God
and man; combining in His person the two natures, not
indeed as separate parts, but as two aspects of one and the
same being — even the Son of God become man, man sin-
less, pleromatic, wonder-working, still man — not possess-
ing the eternal world-governing form of the metaphysical
attributes of God, not even the eternal form of the ethical
attributes, such being incompatible with the idea of man.^
On the ambitious speculations concerning an Incarna-
tion independent of sin, as the realization of the great end
of creation, the union of God, the Creator, with man, the
highest of His creatures, interwoven by Ebrard into his
Christology, I offer no remark, all the more that they con-
duct to giddy heights, on which one accustomed to hum-
bler levels of thought is apt to experience vertigo. I sim-
ply observe, that the Christological theory of this author-
seems to be more in harmony with the pretentious phil-
osophy with which it is associated, than with the facts of
gospel history, or with the catholic faith concerning our
Lord's person. Ebrard, indeed, is very confident that his
theory is at once scriptural and ecclesiastically orthodox;
but this circumstance need not influence us much, as over-
weening confidence is one of his most marked intellectual
characteristics. As to Scripture, it may be admitted that
it does appear as if Christ possessed the inherent power to
work miracles at will. His virtue in the temptation and at
other times consisting in absolutely abstaining from making
any use of His power for His own personal behoof But
how is the doctrine that Christ, as man, possessed ap-
plied omniscience, to be reconciled with His profession of
ignorance .'' That profession Ebrard himself regards as
bond fide, and he looks on the ignorance sincerely acknowl-

' Dogmatik, ii. p. 35: Die gOttliche und menschliche Natur sind nicht zwei
Sttlcke, oder Theile, aus denen die Person Christi zusammengeleimt ist, sondeni
der Sohn Gottes ward Mcnsch, so dass er nun eben Mensch war, zwar, sundloser,
pleromatischer wunderthatiger Mensch, aber eben Mensch, nicht besitzend die
mit dem Begritf des Menschen streitende ewige weltregierende Form der meta-
physischen Eigenschaften Gottes, selbst nicht die ewige Form der cthischen.

Modern Kenotic Theories. i85

edged, as an evidence that Christ did not possess omni-
science in the eternal form.^ But the question is, did He
possess rt///zV</ omniscience, the power of knowing this and
that secret at will; and if He did, how is that attribute to
be reconciled with real ignorance? Is it not an abuse of
.words to ascribe applied omniscience to one of whom ig-
norance can be predicated ? ^ How, again, is the doctrine
that Christ possessed divine attributes in an applied form,
to be reconciled with the state of childhood ? Did Christ as
a child possess omnipotence and omniscience applicable at
will ? Ebrard could hardly reply in the affirmative, for he
admits that Jesus really grew in wisdom as in stature.*
He might indeed say that the child possessed these attri-
butes unconsciously, as a sleeping man possesses knowl-
edge: therefore in an inapplicable form. But this, again, is
only playing with words. Unconscious, unavailable power
is a euphemism for impotence; and unconscious, unavail-
able knowledge a euphemism for ignorance. Once more,
where in Scripture are we taught that man is destined to
attain to such divine powers as Ebrard ascribes to Christ,
even to unlimited dominion of the spirit over nature, to
unlimited power to penetrate all objects of knowledge,
and to unlimited dominion over space ? And if, indeed,
this be man's ultimate destiny, to be attained in the state
of glory, in what sense does Christ differ from all in whom
this ideal of humanity is realized .'* Does not this doctrine
lead to as many Incarnations as there shall be glorified

' Dogmatik, ii. p. 21: Was die Allwissenheit betrifft, so weiss er nicht die Zeit
des VVeltgerichts; selbst die Art seines Leidens sieht er mit naheier Bestimmtheit
erst gegen Ende seines Lebens voraus.

'^ Dogmatik, ii. p. 20: Von dem Augenblick an, wo er in die Existenzform des
menschlichen Embryo eingegangen war, entwickelte er sich als achtes mensch-
liches Individuuni, ward geboren, lag als Kind in der Krippe, wuchs, und wuchs
nicht etwa nur lieblich, so dass seine geistige Entwicklung so gleich von Anfang
an vollendet und fertig, oder er gar etwa, wahrend er in der Wiege lag, allwissend
gewesen ware, sondern es heisst von ihm, Luk. ii. 52, er nahm zu an Alter und
Weisheit.

* See Dogmatik, ii. p. 145, where, with reference to the personal identity of the
Incarnate with the pre-existent Logos, Ebrard emphasizes the truth that unity of
person is not the same thing as unity of consciousness, and remarks that as- every
man is more than he knows, so it is conceivable that the incarnate Logos bore
within Him the fulness of His eternal essential properties without being conscious
of them.

t86 TJie Humiiiation of Christ.

saints ? It is no bar to this conclusion to say that Christ
possesses absolutely, what we shall possess relatively.* If
" relatively " mean imperfectly, then after all it is not
man's destiny to possess the unlimited power promised to
him. If, on the other hand, " relatively" does not involve
limitation, then how does it differ from " absolutely " ?
The question of our author's orthodoxy, in the ecclesias-
tical sense, is one of secondary importance; but his self-
complacency on this score provokes the remark, that his
attempt to bring the Patristic and the Reformed Chris-
tologies into conformity with his views can hardly appear,
to a dispassionate reader, in any other light than as a char-
acteristic display of perverse ingenuity. It may be the case
that the two natures in Christ are in truth only two aspects,
two abstract properties belonging to the Son of God entered
into the form of humanity: the divine nature signifying the
properties which belong to Him as the incarnate SON OF
God (uncreated, eternally-begotten, etc.); the human na-
ture signifying those which belong to Him as the Son of
God INCARNATE (conceived, born, dead, possessing a ra-
tional soul and a human body); but this is not the way in,
which the early fathers, or the Reformed theologians, con-
ceived of the matter.^ The two natures were not in their
view two persons, but they were two subsistences, two
things. John of Damascus may be taken as a more reliable
expositor of the Church doctrine than the erratic modern
divine. Having distinguished three senses in which the
word nature may be viewed, according as it is considered
either sola cogitatione, or in specie, or in individuo, John
applies the distinction to the Incarnation as follows: God
the Word, assuming flesh, neither took a nature, which is
an object of mere mental contemplation (for this would not
have been an Incarnation, but an imposture), nor tliat which

» Abendmahl, ii. 791: Der aber wer ohne Stinde und der Eingeborene vom
Vater war, der besass.absolut, was wir dereinst relativ zu besitzen bestimmt sind.

« Ebrard, Dogmatik, ii. p. 61, gives the above as the import of the doctrine
formulated at the Council of Chalcedon: Die beiden (pvdEii sind also nach chal-,
cedoni&cher Lehre weder zwei Personen (der Logos und ein Mensch) noch auch zwei
Subsii-tenzen in dem Einen menschgewordenen Logos (Naturea in concretem Sinn)
Soodem zwei abstracte, nur durch Abstraction denkbare Proprietaten, die dem ia
die Form der Menschheit eingetretenen Sohne Gottes zukommen, etc.

Modern Kenvtic Theories, i^S^/

is considered z/^i/^^zV, but that only which is in individuo\
not, indeed, as having subsisted by itself as an independent
individual before its assumption, but as having its subsist-
ence in the person of the Word.^ The Reformed theolo-
gians concurred in this view. It is true, indeed, that In
their controversy with the Lutherans they were accustomed
to speak of the two natures as abstracta, with- reference to
the person, it being the habit of their opponents to over-
look the distinction between person and nature, and ascribe
to the human nature of Christ, per se, whatever might be
ascribed to the man Christ, But this is a very different
thing from regarding the human nature as simply an aspect
of the incarnate Logos, as if, for example, the human soul
of Christ were simply the Logos under the time-form of
existence, subject to the law of succession in His thought,
and applying His- omnipotence not in all directions simulta-
neously, but now in this direction, now in that. In the
Reformed Christology, Christ's soul was a numericall}^ dis-
tinct entity from the Logos. Hence Ebrard finds it rather
difficult to make citations from the Reformed writers, which
even seem to support his views, and is under the necessity
of correcting their inaccurate (.'') expressions, in order to
bring them up to the Ebrardian standard of orthodoxy.
Thus, e.g., one old expounder of the Reformed Christology
says: "The human nature of Christ is a creature, visible,
tangible, finite in essence, duration, and power, composed^
of body and soul; His divine nature is God invisible, impal-
pable, infinite as to essence, duration, and power, void of
all composition, impassible, immortal." Our modern repre-
sentative of the Reformed school of theology treats his
predecessor as a blundering schoolboy, and after the words,
'* the human nature of Christ," writes within brackets
("better, Christ in His human nature").*

' De Fide Orihodoxa, lib. iii. cap. xi.

2 Dogmatik, ii. p. 114, quoting Wendeline: Ita humana Christi natura est [bes-
ser, Christus humana natura est] creatura, visibilis, palpabilis, finita[us] quoad
essentiam, durationem, et potentiam, composita[us] ex corpora et anima; divina
natura est Deus, invisibilis, impalpabilis, infinita[us] quoad essentiam durationem,
potentiam, omnis compositionis expers, impatibilis, immortalis. Ebrard admits
that in some writings of the Reformed school the two natures are spoken of as
"two parts." On the other hand, he claims Zanchius as one whcr most clearly

1 88 The Humiliation of Christ.

7. The kenotic theory, in the form given to it by Mar-
tensen, escapes at least some of the objections to which,
under the forms already considered, it is liable. The initial
/difficulty pointed out in connection with the Thomasian
/scheme does not meet us here, where thekenosis while real
lis only relative; inasmuch as, on this hypothesis, the In-
' carnation does not signify the assumption of human nature
/ by an already absolutely depotentiated Logos, or by an act
of power on the part of the Logos, which is at the
, same time an act of self-depotentiation; but consists in a
I voluntary act, by which the Logos becomes a human life
/ centre, without His power becoming exhausted in the act.
The passivity of the depotentiated Logos, and helpless
subjection to the flesh, in the incarnate state also dis-
appear; for to whatever extent the laws of physical nature
have power over the Logos, in that state they have it
by His own consent. For the same reason, this new form
of the theory is not open to the charge of making the Lo-
gos, by one act of self-depotentiation, incapable of dis-
playing His gracious love in connection with a.large part of
his human experience. While the Logos as man passes
through the unconscious life of childhood, He is conscious
of this stage of His incarnate being, and shows His love by

and consciously held the opposite view. The doctrine of Zanchius, however, is
simply a repetition of that taught by Damascenus. ( Vid. Doginatik, ii. p. 104, in
a long and very scholastic note on the various senses of the words "subsistence "
and " substance," and on the use of them by the Reformed in connection with the
Incarnation). In connection with Zanchius, another instance may be mentioned
of Ebrard's habit of perverting the meaning of citations, occurring in the same
place. He represents Zanchius as teaching that, in the Incarnation, the Logos
became a limited Being. The ground of this representation is the following cita-
tion: "Christus in ea assumpta forma servi sese evacuavit omni sua divina gloria,
omnipotentia, omnipresentia, omniscientia. Factus est ex ditissimo pauperimus,
ex omnipotente infirmus, ex omnisciente ignarus, ex immenso finitus." These
words, taken by themselves, might naturally suggest an absolute surrender of the
divine attributes named, at least in the eternal form. But the following words of
Zanchius, not quoted by Ebrard, show that the former author had no intention of
teaching any such doctrine: " non quod," Zanchius continues, " reipsa desierit
esse, quod erat iv i.iopq)jj &sov, sed quod in hac forma servi sicut factus est ex
Deo homo, sic ex Domino servus, ex ditissimo pauperimus, ex omnipotente infirmus,
ex omnisciente ignarus, ex immortali morlalis, ex immenso finitus, ex ubique prae-
senti, certis locis circumscriptus, denique ex aequali cum Patre, valde minor Patre;
a^ proinde quod secundum hanc naturam et formam servi, non potuit dici omni-
potens, omniscius, ubique praesens." Zanchius, De Filii Dei Incarnatione, c. ii.

Modern Keiiotic Theories. 189

consenting to pass through it. While escaping these diffi-
culties besetting the theory of an absolute metaphysical
kenosis, Martensen's doctrine seems to satisfy the demands
of the etJiical kenosis taught in Scripture. The self-empty-
ing ascribed to the Logos by the apostle does not neces-
sarily require absolute physical depotentiation, but only i
that the Logos shall limit Himself so far as the incarnate
state is concerned, and shall be able to predicate of Him-
self subjection to the limits of that state. Nor does it
appear very difficult to reconcile this view with the ex-
change of form which, according to the most correct
exegesis, seems to be taught in the passage in the Epistle
to the Philippians. Granting that the kenosis involved a
giving up of divine form, and a taking upon Him on the
part of the Logos, in its stead, of the form of a servant in
the likeness of man, it does not follow that the Logos
ceased absolutely to be what He was; all that necessarily
follows is, that the two forms were not combined in the in-
carnate life of the Logos. Notwithstanding what is said
there, it may be that the Logos has a double life — one in
the man Christ Jesus; one as the world-governing, world-
illuminating Logos. Such a double life is certainly not
taught in the passage, but neither is it formally excluded;
nor can it be held to be excluded by implication, unless it
can be shown that the doctrine of a double life is incom-
patible with the condescension of the Son of God implied
in the Incarnation, and evacuates His self-humiliation of all
real ethical significance. If the contrary of this be true,
then the apostle had simply no occasion to pronounce on
the question whether the kenosis was absolute or relative
only; it was enough for his purpose to emphasize its reality
with reference to the incarnate state; so that, for example,
Jesus should not be a child merely in outward seeming,
but in very truth, speaking as a child, thinking as a child,
understanding as a child. Whatever the form of God may
mean, three positions may be taken up as to what the apos-
tle meant to teach concerning it in connection with the
Incarnation. It may be held that he meant to teach, cither
that the Logos retained the form of God in becoming man,
or that He absolutely renounced the divine form in becom-

190 Tl^^ Humiliation of Christ.

ing man, or that in becoming man the Logos entered into
a form of existence which involved a real renunciation of
the divine form, whether absolute or otherwise not being
said, or possibly not even thought of. The first position is
that taken up by the Fathers: the second is the view which
naturally commends itself to advocates of a metamorphic
or semi-metamorphic kenosis, like Gess and Ebrard; the
third is the position which best fits in to the hypothesis
of a double life taught by Martensen. It is a perfectly
feasible position. Of course, even if allowed, this view of
the apostle's meaning does not prove the hypothesis in
question; it simply leaves room for it. But that is all
that is wanted to legitimate it as a hypothesis intended to
cover and account for all the facts of our Lord's history,
without creating more or greater difficulties than it solves.
That this hypothesis has no difficulties of its own to meet,
cannot indeed be pretended. The idea of a " double life "
of the Logos raises speculative questions which Martensen
has not attempted to answer, and which have not been
satisfactorily cleared up by those who have made the at-
tempt. It is frankly admitted by some that the double life
has the appearance of positing a double personality, a double
ego; but it is explained that this appearance vanishes as
soon as we more closely consider the relation of time and
eternity as not temporal but causal. That being duly
weighed, we shall see our way to holding at once a real
kenosis, and the possession, yea, the use, without conceal-
iinent, of the divine glory {p6'ka) on the part of the incarnate
Son of God.^ But even after we have thought sufficiently
long and intensely on the relation referred to, trying to
conceive it as directed till the brain grows weary, we may
still find such a combination hard to conceive, and ask our-
selves, how can the same mind be conscious and unconscious,
finite and infinite, ignorant and omniscient, at the same
moment.?^ It is indeed a hard problem, but in justice it

' So SchObeflein; see Appendix, Note E.

« Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 435, states, as a conclusive objection
to Ebrard's theory, which he understands as teaching a double life of the Logos,
that " it assumes that the same individual mind can be conscious and unconscious,
finite and infinite, ignorant and omniscient, at the same time."

Modern Kenotic Theories. 191

must be borfie in mind that it is, in one form or another, a
problem which presents itself to all who believe in the real
Incarnation of an undepotentiated Logos. For Martensen
and those who think with him, the problem is, how can
one and the same mind (that of the Logos) be at once con-
scious and unconscious, omniscient and ignorant ? for
Schneckenburger and Dorner, and such as agree with them,
the problem is, how can one and the same person be at
once conscious and unconscious, omniscient and ignorant
^ — the former in the Logos per se, the latter in the human
soul of the child or the man Jesus ?

On the whole, with every desire to give the kenotic theory
a fair and candid hearing, one cannot but feel that there are
difficulties connected with it which " puzzle " the mind and
give the judgment " pause," and dispose to acquiescence in the
cautious opinion of a German theologian, more than half
inclined to support a hypothesis in favour with many of his
countrymen: "The relations of eternity and time, of the
ethical and physical, of the Incarnation to the primitive
man, of the historical God-man to the previous activity of thb
Logos; the true and the untrue in ApolHnarism, and the
bearing of this hypothesis on the ddvyxwov, must be made
clearer and more comprehensible than heretofore, before the
full scientific and practical fruit of recent Christological
speculation can be reaped," ^ or even, it may be added, rightly
judged of as to its quality. One may well be excused, in-
deed, for assuming this attitude of suspended judgment,
not merely in reference to the kenotic theories, but towards
all the speculative schemes we have had occasion to notice
in this lecture. The hypothesis of a double life, oi d. gradual
Incarnation, and of a depotentiated Logos, are all legitimate
enough as tentative solutions of a hard problem; and those
who require their aid may use any one of them as a prop
around which faith may twine. But it is not necessary to
adopt any one of them; we are not obliged to choose be-
tween them; we may stand aloof from them all; and it may

' Nitzsch, System der ChristUchen Lehre, sechste Auflage, p. 262, in a note on
Liebner's C/tristologie, which he characterizes as " der bedeutendste Fortschriti
dec speculativen Lehre vom gottmenschlichen Leben und Bewusstsein zur Berich-
tigung der kirchlichen und der beiden confessioneller Lehrarten und Formeln."

192 The Humiliation of Christ.

be best when faith can afford to dispense with their services.
For it is not good that the certainties of faith should lean
too heavily upon uncertain and questionable theories. Wis-
dom dictates that we should clearly and broadly distinguish
between the great truths revealed to us in Scripture, and
the hypotheses which deep thinkers have invented, for the
purpose of bringing these truths more fully within the grasp
of their understandings. My esteemed predecessor in thir
lectureship. Principal Rainy, has said : " If there are sifting
times before us, the effect will probably be to compel us with
more stringency, with more discriminating regard to all
considerations bearing on each point, to determine how
much we can really say we know, how far we can say Scrip-
ture designed to guide our thought to this result, to this
alternative, to this resting-place." Applying this most
needful discipline to the great subject of our present studies,
we shall probably find, after the most painstaking inquiry,
that what we know reduces itself as nearly as possible to the
axioms enumerated in our first lecture, and that the effect,
though not the design, of theories of Christ's person, has
been to a large extent to obscure some of these elementary
truths, — the unity of the person, or the reality of the humanity,
or the divinity dwelling within the man, or the voluntariness
and ethical value of the state of humiliation. That is, cer-
tainties have been sacrificed for uncertainties, facts for hy-
potheses, faith for speculation. If this be the testimony of
history, then the lesson is plain : Be content to walk by
faith, and take care that no ambitious attempt to walk by
sight rob you of any cardinal truth relating to Him in whom
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

LECTURE V.

MODERN HUMANISTIC THEORIES OF CHRIST'S PERSON.

The discussions contained in the three preceding lectures
leave on the mind the impression that the person of Christ
is a great mystery. The catholic believer, who sees in
Christ God manifest in the flesh, frankly confesses the mys-
tery. For, while he accepts with unfeigned truth the doc-
trine of the Incarnation, and finds in that truth, on its ethical
side, rest to his spirit, he feels and owns the speculative or
scientific construction of Christ's person, as God incarnate,
to be a hard if not an insoluble problem. The more he
studies the history of past attempts at its solution, and
observes how opinion has oscillated between Nestorian
duality and Monophysite unity, and how open to criticism
are the recent essays of the Kenotic school to construct a
Christology not liable to these objections, the less he will
be inclined for himself to undertake the task; while still
clinging with unabated earnestness to a dogma which gives
him a God who can condescend and perform morally heroic
acts, and earn for Himself men's devoted love by a sublime
career of self-humiliation and self-sacrifice.

It cannot be doubted that the mystery which envelops
the doctrine of Christ's person, as set forth in the creed,
presents a strong temptation to desert the catholic foun-
dation, and to refuse to see in the Incarnation " the pillar
and ground of the truth." Many in recent years have yielded
to the temptation, and have adopted purely humanistic
views of the subject. At the root of this departure from the
catholic faith, in the case of many, is a naturalistic philos-
ophy, which refuses to recognise the miraculous in the con-

194 ^^^ Humiliation of CJrnst.

stitution of Christ's person as in every other sphere. In the
case of some, however, dissent is professedly based not on
philosophy, but on exegesis. Even in the case of those
whose belief is determined by philosophic bias, the attitude
assumed is not always precisely the same. There are shades
■ and degrees of naturalism, and in giving an account of the
naturalistic views of Christ's person it will conduce to ac-
curacy to attend to these distinctions.

Those who advocate a purely humanistic view of our
Lord's person, on whatever ground, may be divided into
five classes. First, there are those who take their stand
on absolute, thoroughgoing naturalism, refusing to recog-
nise miracle in any sphere, physical or moral, and there-
fore declining to accept even the old Unitarian view of
Christ, according to which, while only a man, He was yet
z. perfect man. Next, there are others who, while natural-
istic in their philosophic proclivities, shrink from the
thoroughgoing application of the principles with which
they secretly sympathize, and though readily consenting
to banish the supernatural from the physical sphere, at the
expense of philosophic consistency retain it in the ethical,
and with the Catholic Church confess the sinlessuess of
Jesus. A third party, though really at one with the former
of these two schools in opinion, side with the latter in feel-
ing, and, while in no instance and in no sphere recognising
the veritably miraculous, nevertheless endeavour in their
whole delineation of Christ's life and character to embrace
in the picture as much as possible of the extraordinary and
wonderful. To these three phases of modern naturalistic
opinion concerning the Founder of our faith may be added
a fourth, that, viz., characteristic of those who, while im-
bued with the scientific spirit of our time, and paying great
deference to the incredulous attitude of science towards the
miraculous, can scarcely be regarded as occupying any
definite philosophic position. Men belonging to this school
are quite willing to accept the account Jesus gave of Him-
self, as far as they can gather it from the evangelic records.
Turning away from the multifarious theological controver-
sies concerning the person of Christ, as matters which they
cannot understand, and with which they have no sympathy,

Modern Hzimanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 1 95

they go back to the fountainhead, and try to put them-
selves in the position of those who were eye and ear wit-
nesses of the Word, and to form for themselves an impres-
sion of I Tim at first hand. And the impression they do form
is very much the same as that expressed by Peter at Caesa-
rea-Philippi when he said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God." When asked what they mean by such
words, they reply in effect, We cannot tell. " The power
of Christ is to be felt, not explained." You may, if you like,
manufacture theological dogmas out of them; it is quite
possible that they can "by the kind of ingenuity common
among professional theologians be brought within the proper
lines of accepted opinion." But it is not worth while to do
so; it is "a pitiful waste of time." ^ Finally, the fifth class
embraces all those who, while agreeing with naturalistic
theologians in rejecting the catholic doctrine, do so not on
speculative grounds, but on the ground of positive exegesis.
To all these schools of opinion the person of Christ is a
fnystery not less than to those who cordially accept as
their own belief the creeds of the Church Catholic. To
whom shall we go to escape mystery .-* The personality
of his beloved Master was a great mystery to the disciple
Peter. But was it less of a mystery to the multitude which
was broken up into parties in reference to the question,
Who is this Son of Man .? — some saying He is John the
Baptist, others He is Elias, and others He is Jeremias, or
one of the prophets .-* In like manner, it is vain for one who
is perplexed by the mystery of the Catholic doctrine con-
cerning Christ to go in hope of relief to any one of the
parties we have discriminated as existing in our day. One
and all of them, whether confessedly or not, believe in a
Christ who is a mystery; insomuch that the element of
mysteriousness must be set aside altogether as a test of
truth or falsehood, and our faith be made to rest on entirely
different grounds. It may be worth while to enter into
some detail in proof of this assertion; for it is a great help
to faith to realize distinctly and clearly the alternatives.
Simon Peter having asked himself the question, To whom
shall we go if we leave Jesus .'' and having clearly per-
' Vid. Haweis, Cwrettt Coin, pp. 312, 313.

\g6 The Humiliation of Christ.

ceived that he could not better his position, remained
where he was, contenting himself with the Master he had
hitherto followed in spite of all drawbacks. So we, when
tempted to abandon the conception of Christ which the
Church has taught us, because of its acknowledged difTi-
culties, do well to ask ourselves, Shall we escape difficulty
by exchanging that conception for any other offered us by
current opinions ? and to take pains to arrive at a well-
considered answer.

I. The first of the five above specified forms of current
opinion concerning Christ, that of thoroughgoing natural-
ism, does not homologate the sentiment of the apostle,
" confessedly great is the mystery of godliness," as pre-
sented in the history and character of Jesus of Nazareth.
It flatters itself that by the consistent unflinching appli-
cation of its fundamental principle, the miraculous impos-
sible, to the evangelic biography, it gets rid of all mystery.
It finds there, indeed, a marvel of piety, but no miracle; a
singularly good and wise man worthy of all love and ad-
miration, but no sinless perfect being; a perfect man being
a breach in the continuity of human history, a contradiction
of the law that all which is real is relative, a moral miracle,
and therefore an impossibility not less than the raising of
a dead man to life would be. But do the advocates of this
view really get rid of all mysterious elements in the life of
Jesus, or do they accomplish more than to satisfy them-
selves that on their principles there ought to be none .•*
Let us see. In the first place, if Jesus be a man chargeable
with sin, as He is bound to be on their principles, how
comes it to pass that it is so hard, even for those who apply
themselves to the task with every good-will, to accuse
Him of sin on the basis of the Gospel record .■' We know
that many attempts have been made by men of this school
to establish a charge of moral culpability against Jesus,
and we also know how very much the reverse of signal
successes these have been. In absence of more important
material for such an accusation, the blasphemers of the
Son of Man have been obliged to content themselves with
such paltry things as these: that harsh word to His mother
at Cana; the perversely mystic style of the sermon on the

Mackrn Humanistic TlicoiHcs of Christ's Person. 197

bread of life in the synagogue of Capernaum, "bristling
with statements fitted to irritate and disgust hearers,"
the sentence in the intercessory prayer, " I pray not for
the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me;" the
direction given to the disciples to let an offender who re-
fuses to confess his fault be unto them as an heathen man
and a publican; the harsh treatment of the Syro-Phcenician
woman; the heartless reply to the disciple who would bury
his father, " Let the dead bury their dead." ^ Contemptible
arguments surely to bring against the doctrine of Christ's
sinlessness, which it were a mistake in an apologist to
honour with a serious reply, but which well deserve the in-
dignant rebuke of a distinguished American divine: "These
and such like specks of fault are discovered, as they think,
in the life of Jesus. So graceless in our conceit have we
of this age grown, that we can think it a point of'scholarly
dignity and reason to spot the only perfect beauty that has
ever graced our world with such discovered blemishes as
these ! As if sin could ever need to be made out against
a real sinner in this small way of special pleading; or as if
it were ever the way of sin to err in single particles or
homoeopathic quantities of wrong. A more just sensibility
would denounce this malignant style of criticism as a heart-
less and really low-minded pleasure in letting down the
honours of goodness." ^ I sympathize with Bushnell's scorn
and indignation, but at the same time I feel that the small
captious critics of Jesus are to be pitied as well as de-
nounced. Their philosophy requires them to speak evil
words against the Son of Man; and if the materials for
cursing are very scanty, what course is left for the Balaams
of modern unbelief than to make the most of such as are
available .? In no other way can w^e account for the fact
of such a grave and serious writer as Keim condescending
to notice the incidents already referred to, and others of
similar nature, as blemishes in the character of Jesus.'

Some writers of this school are fair enough to admit that
the faults chargeable on our Lord are few and small, and

1 See Pecaut, Le Christ ei la Conscience, p. 250.
* Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, chap. x.
3 Vid, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. iii. p. 641.

198 The Humiliation of Christ.

find themselves under the necessity of accounting for the
fact, in harmony with the assumption of naturalistic phil-
osophy, that He must have been, like all other men, in seri-
ous respects morally defective. One thing very specially
insisted on in this connection is the fragmentary nature of
our sources of information. " Suppose," says Pecaut, " no
reliable indication of imperfection should be found in the
history of Jesus, what inference could be drawn therefrom ?
We possess only fragments of His biography, and fragments
relative to His public life; that is, to that which is best in
the history of a man devoted to the good of others. Do
you not know that the discourses and the public acts of
every one of us are better than our internal state .-' Is that
hypocrisy .'' God forbid: only the best of men speak and
act as they wish to be in the bottom of their hearts. But
what information have we as to the infancy of Jesus, His
private and family history, and finally, as to His inner life .' " ^
We might reply. We have the testimony of those who knew
Him intimately during the period of His public ministry,
and had access to information concerning the antecedent
period, who even in His lifetime spoke of Jesus as the Holy
One, and after His death spoke of Him as such absolutely
and without qualification. But we are told that the testi-
mony of the disciples and apostles, while justly making a
favourable im.pression on the whole, does not go beyond
the similar testimony borne by Xenophon to Socrates, who
nevertheless, by his own confession, was not a sinless man.*
We are thus thrown back on what is, after all, the most
convincing evidence of the sinlessness of Jesus, viz., the
utter absence of all trace of any consciousness of sin on
His part. It is surely a very striking thing to find one
whose moral perceptions were so delicate; who knew so
well what was in man; who could see beneath a fair ex-
terior rottenness and dead men's bones; who discerned
fleshly sin even in licentious thoughts and looks; who had
such abhorrence of vanity, pride, ostentation, and other
sins of the spirit universally committed in the world, and
commonly treated as no sins at all, bearing Himseli

' Le Christ et la Conscience, p. 240.

« Keimj Jesu von Nazara, vol, iii. p. 641.

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 199

throughout as one who had no part in these sins of the flesh
and spirit, though not exempted from experience of temp-
tation. It is doubtless a ready suggestion that admiring
attached disciples were not likely to record words or facts
indicative of a sense of moral shortcoming. But it deserves
to be noticed that the evangelists have not been afraid to
record facts which might easily be mistaken for, and have
in fact been mistaken for, proofs of moral infirmity, as, e.g.,
the clearing of the temple, and very specially the great
philippic against the religious heads of the people, which
Renan and others have regarded as an evidence that Jesus
had lost His self-possession, and grown intemperate and fan-
atical in feeling; a fact, if it were a fact, certainly revealing
great moral weakness. Then it is further to be observed,
that the question is not one of mere suppression of incon-
venienc facts which might reflect on the character of one's
hero. The real state of the case is, that Jesus throughout
bears Himself as no one could who had the consciousness
of moral shortcoming. By artless narration, as opposed to
artistic invention, the evangelists have set before us a man
who seems constantly surrounded by the sunlight of a good
conscience, void of offence towards God and towards men,
entirely exempt from the dark moods of men who have
passed through moral tragedies, having no occasion to ex-
claim with a Paul, " Oh, wretched man that I am ! " or to
confess that the good He would, that He did not; and the evit
He would not, that He did. Utterly remote from Pelagian
views of human character and conduct, He walks about oai
this earth as one who enjoys perfect unbroken fellowship
with His Father in heaven, and whose relations to men are
regulated wholly by the love of righteousness and the spirit
of mercy. He is the one man in human history who
seems to have no consciousness of sin. His only relation to
the sin of the world, to all appearance, being that of one
who bears it in His heart as a burden by sympathy, and
who, in some mysterious way, hopes to bear it away and
destroy it; not a sinner, but a saviour from sin, come to
save the morally lost by His love in life and in death.

This absence of all consciousness of moral shortcoming in
one characterized by such exceptional depth and strength

200 The Humiliation of ChiHst,

of moral conviction, is a second element of mystery in the
person of Christ, which must greatly puzzle those who re-
fuse to see in Him one " who knew no sin." Granting that
the paucity of censurable materials in His recorded public
life may be plausibly explained, this phenomenon cannot
easily be accounted for. Had Jesus been a Greek, it might
have been less unintelligible; for the spirit of the Greeks
was much more sensitive to beauty than to sin, and it was
possible for one belonging to the Hellenic race to walk
about with serene, smiling countenance and light heart,
though he had committed moral offences, his past misdeeds
possibly present to his consciousness as occurrences, but no
burden to his conscience as transgressions. But Jesus be-
longed to a race which had been trained by a stern legal
discipline to regard sin as a terrible reality. By the law
had come to Him, as to other Jews, if not the knowledge
of sin, at least a highly educated conscience, a trained fac-
ulty of discernment between right and wrong, and an acute
sense of the importance of moral distinctions. And the
wonder and the mystery is, that with the Jewish conscience
did not come to this man, as to others, the ordinary con-
sciousness of sin. In saying this, I do not forget that there
were other Jews in whom something superficially resem-
bling this strange combination presented itself, self-satis-
faction associated with the habit of moral discernment.
There were men who could see and severely condemn sin
in others, and yet see little or no sin in themselves: who
beheld the mote that was in their brother's eye, and con-
sidered not the beam that was in their own; who could
stand in the temple and thank God that they were not as
other men, and with much unction recite their own virtues,
while drawing out a catalogue of other men's vices. There
v/ere Pharisees, with consciences like a policeman's lantern,
with its light side turned outward towards the breaker of
the laws, and its dark side towards their guardian. But we
cannot account for the mystery connected with the moral
consciousness of Jesus by likening Him to this class of
men; and so far as we are aware, it has not occurred to any
one to suggest such a solution. Jesus was no Pharisee; He
was the scourge of Pharisees, the unsparing exposer and

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 20 1

denouncer of their moral obliquity, hypocrisy, and pride;
the moral antipodes of the class in spirit and in judgment,
loving- those whom they despised, exalting- to the place of
supreme importance duties and virtues which they neg-
lected, and regarding as trivialities practices which seemed
to them of vital moment. And yet He agreed with the
Pharisees in this, that He had not the consciousness of sin;
He did not. He could not say, " God be merciful to me the
sinner; " He felt not the need of repentance. Would not
the Son of Man be almost tempted to regard this resem-
blance as a misfortune .'' He who so intensely loved the
publicans and sinners, and whose spirit shrank back with
such revulsion and loathing from Pharisaic self-righteous-
ness, would rather have taken His place with the poor
publican who stood afar off with downcast eyes, and smit-
ing on his breast exclaimed, " God be merciful to me the
sinner," than with the self-satisfied Pharisee who said,
" God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are." He
certainly would have done it if He could, and He did that
which came as near to it as possible. Since He could not
repent, He felt for those who needed repentance; since He
could not bear the burden of personal demerit, by an un-
speakably deep and tender sympathy He took on His spirit
the burden of those who were heavy laden with guilt; since
He could not know sin, He made Himself a sinner by iden-
tifying Himself so closely with the sinful as to earn the
honourable nickname of the Sinner's Friend.

But this beautiful unearthly compassion for the sinful which
has earned for Jesus the blessings of so many that were
ready to perish, reminds us of yet another direction in which
an explanation maybe sought for the mystery of His moral
self-consciousness. It may be supposed that His serenity
arose out of His own faith in the gospel which He preached
to the sinful, the gospel of God's infinite pardoning mercy.
He was happ)/- in spite of shortcomings, just as any of us
may be, just as every healthy-minded Christian is who
believes that God has forgiven his sin, and stands in the
same relation to him as if sin had never existed. His sky
was cloudless, and His soul full of sunlight, because the
mists engendered by an evil conscience had disappeared

202 The Humiliation of Christ.

before the warm beams of a heavenly Father's boundless
charity. If a Paul or a David could attain to a joy unmarred
by the memory of past transgression, through faith in the
loving-kindness and multitudinous tender mercies of God,
why not a Jesus ? If it was possible for a weeping penitent
to go into peace on hearing the soothing words: "Thy
^aith hath saved thee," why may not the speaker Himself
have entered into peace by the same door ? May not His
confidence in the power of faith to conduct to peace have
been based on His own experience ? It is painful to one
who believes in the Sinless One to ask such questions, but
we cannot deny that from the point of view of those who
do not share our belief they are not irrelevant. What, then,
shall we say in reply .'* We must remind unbelievers of
another well-ascertained fact in the history of Jesus, viz.,
that He claimed to be the Judge of men, a claim which
could not reasonably be made except by one Avho stood on
a different moral level from other men. The fact of the
claim and its moral significance are admitted by theologians
of eminence belonging to the naturalistic school, as, e.g.,
by Dr. Baur of Tubingen. This able writer, it need hardly
be said, has no faith in a future judgment of the world, as
popularly conceived. In his hands the judicial function of
Christ resolves itself into the critical power of the truth.
" If," he says, " we regard the doctrine and activity of Jesus
from t\iQ. ethical point of view, under which it is to be placed
'iccording to the Sermon on the Mount and the parables, it
Delo|jgs thereto essentially that that doctrine and activity
must be the absolute standard for the judgment of the
moral worth and the actions and conduct of men. Accord-
ing to the diverse attitude of men towards the doctrine of
Jesus, as the ground law of the kingdom of heaven, they are
divided into two essentially different classes, whose moral
worth, brought to its absolute expression, is expressed by
the contrast of everlasting blessedness and everlasting
damnation. But what holds in the first place of the
doctrine of Jesus, holds also in the next place of His person,
so far as He is the originator and promulgator of the same.
With His doctrine His person is inseparably connected.
He is the concrete embodiment of the eternal significance

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Persoji. 203

of the absolute truth of His doctrine. Is it His doctrine
according to which the moral worth of men is to be judged
for all eternity ? then He it is who speaks the sentence as
the future judge of men." ' Now, even taking Baur's account
of Christ's judicial function, what a high claim it involves !
It implies that Jesus regarded Himself as the moral idea
realized. For His claim is absolute, not relative. His
doctrine concerning the judgment is not, I am the Judge
in so far as I am in my own person a realization of the
ethical ideal, so that the attitude men assume towards me
(knowing what they 'do) determines their attitude towards
that ideal, and the same may be said of every good man in
proportion as he realizes in his character the ideal — not
that, but, " I am the Judge," without any qualifying " in so
far." It is true that the disciples are promised seats beside
the King, as co-judges with Him of the tribes of Israel,
even as it is said by Paul that the saints shall judge the
world. But there is a wide interval between the judicial
power of the saint or apostle and that of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus is the Judge Absolute, all others — saints, apostles
— are judges longo intervallo, and only in so far as they ap-
proximate the ideal which He alone realizes. That He
claimed to be the Judge absolutely appears from the simple
fact of His representing Himself ordinarily as the Judge
exclusively, without any mention of assessors, or with such
reference to other beings of high rank as puts them in the
position of mere attendants; as in the account of the judg-
ment in Matt, xxv., which opens with the words, " When
the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His
glory."

In view of the claim to be the Judge, it is impossible to
regard the unburdened condition of Christ's conscience as
the simple result of strong faith in divine forgiveness.
That claim is rather a proof that He who advances it does
not feel the need of forgiveness; and if the state of mind in-
dicated by the claim be regarded as a hallucination, then
the claim itself must be reckoned as a third element of
mystery in the moral aspect of Christ's person, whicli can-
1 Neue Testamentliche Theologie, p. no.

204 The Humiliation of Christ.

not but perplex those who refuse to see in Him anything-
out of the common course. Here is one who is ex JiypotJiesi
a sinner, and, judging from the analogy of other men of
outstanding force and magnitude of character, probably a
great sinner, arrogating to Himself the position of Judge
of the sinful, entitled, in discharge of His official functions,
to say to the impenitent, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into
the eternal fire." Is this a part we should expect such an
one to aspire to .■' Is the claim to exercise such tremen-
dous functions a psychologically probable one in the mouth
of one who is himself a transgressor } We could imagine
one who had sinned even grievously, and repented of his
sin, prcacJiing the doctrine of a judgment to come with
great emphasis, seeking to persuade men as one who him-
self knew the terror of the Lord. So preached judgment
Paul, the penitent and pardoned persecutor. But to preach
judgment is a different thing from proclaiming oneself the
Judge. Or we could imagine one who had been character-
ized by great moral frailty, and who was in the habit of
looking on his own shortcomings and those of other men
in a genial, indulgent way, as the effect of temperament,
circumstances, and so forth, after the fashion of a Rousseau
or a Burns, denying a judgment to come; representing
Death as the great redeemer, setting the soul free from its
base corporeal companion to rise to it§ native element of
goodness, and to the society of blessed spirits who delight
in virtue. But not only to be a preacher of judgment, but
to proclaim oneself the Judge, becomes none save one who
is at once holy, harmless, undefiled, and in character
separate from sinners, and yet able, through His power of
sympathy and His experience of temptation, to give due
weight to all extenuating considerations. Such an one the
Scriptures represent Jesus to have been — sinless, therefore
entitled to be the Judge; tempted in all points as we are,
therefore able to temper judgment with mercy.
I In the foregoing observations I have confined myself to
|the personal character, as distinct from the public career,
!c|f Jesus, and have simply sought to emphasize these three
iduestions: If Jesus was the sinful erring man naturalism
iriequires Him to be, whence comes it that it is so difficult,

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2o5

from the record of His life, to convince Him of sin; that in
His whole demeanour no trace of a consciousness of moral
shortcoming can be discerned; that He claims to Himself
the right to be the Judge of all men ? When we pass from
this restricted region of inquiry to the wider sphere of the
public ministry, materials for a proof that to naturalism the
character of Jesus must be a hopeless puzzle greatly multi-
ply on our hands. Here, indeed, the naturalistic critic
would find no difficulty in convicting the subject of his
criticism of sin and folly. The difficulty rather is that sin
and folly are so apparent and glaring on naturalistic princi-
ples, that it becomes hard to understand how they could
be united with so much wisdom and goodness, as all must
confess to have been manifested in the career of the Prophet
of Nazareth. The central points of interest in this depart-
ment are the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, and the
necessity laid upon Him by that claim of playing the part
of a thaumaturge. That Jesus did make such a claim, and
that the claim carried along with it an obligation to be, or
at least to seem, a miracle-worker, are positions generally
admitted. But from the naturalistic point of view, the
Messiah idea was a hallucination, and miracles are impos-
sible. Consequently Jesus, in giv^ing Himself out for the Mes-
siah, if not a deliberate deceiver, must have been Himself
the victim of a national delusion, and in undertaking to work
miracles must have degraded Himself to the level of a con-
jurer. But how to reconcile such imposture, self-delusion^
and quackery with the wisdom and the moral simplicity so
conspicuous in Jesus .-' Naturalism is here obliged to make
patronizing apologies for its hero, in order, if possible, to
mitigate the moral contradictions in His character. Baur
tells us that Jesus could not do otherwise than claim to be
the Messiah, if He wished to gain for His religion a starting-
point from which it could go forth to conquer the world.
Christianity, as Jesus conceived it, had indeed nothing
narrow or Judaistic about it: its essential characteristics
were spirituality and universality; it was a purely moral
religion, and therefore a religion for pII mankind. But then
Jesus Himself was a Jew, and therefore the universal re-
ligion must find its cradle among the Jewish people. But

2o6 The Humiliation of Christ.

no religious movement had any chance of taking- a hold on
the Jewish mind unless it consented to take its form from
the Messianic idea. In other words, Jesus, in order to gain
influence in His own country, and so to make a beginning
in the conquest of the world, must call Himself the Christ,
and offer Himself to His fellow-countrymen as the fulfil-
ment of the Messianic hope, knowing full well that the
hope, as cherished by them, and as expressed in Old Testa-
ment prophecy, was a dream that could never be realized;
accommodating Himself to a delusion for their good, and
for the ultimate good of the world. Similar apologies are
made by Renan for the thaumaturgic element in Christ's
career. He cannot deny that actions which would now be
considered signs of folly held a prominent place in the life
of Jesus. His historic conscience will not allow him to
listen too much to nineteenth century repugnances, and to
attempt to rescue the character of Jesus by suppressing
facts which in the judgment of contemporaries Avere of the
first importance. But he does not feel that these facts
give any occasion for concern about the character of Jesus.
The thaumaturgic aspect of His public career is after all
but a spot on the sun. Who would think of sacrificing to
that unwelcome side the sublime side of such a life .■' It is
enough to say that the miracles of Jesus were a violence
done to Him by His age, a concession extorted from Him
by a temporary necessity. The exorcist and the thauma-
turge have passed away, but the religious reformer v.'ill live
for ever.* Plausible apologies both, but how inconsistent
with the well-ascertained spirit of Him who said, " My
kingdom is not of this world " ! The Jesus of Baur and
Renan says in effect: I must mix a certain amount of the
alloy of falsehood with the pure gold of truth in order that
it may gain currency in the world. The Jesus of the
Gospels says: I decline to act on the principle of worldly
prudence, and am content with what success is compatible
with perfect truthfulness; and because He resolutely adhered
to this programme the world found Him an intolerable
nuisance, and nailed Him to a cross.

2. But I must leave this topic, and go on to notice very

1 Vie de Jesus, p. 26S.

Alodern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 207

briefly the second of the five forms of current opinion con-
cerning the Author of our faith above enumerated, that, viz.,
which sees in Him no sin, and devoutly reveres Him as the
Ideal Perfect Man. This view is familiar to all as that held
by Unitarians such as Martineau and Channing, but we
may connect it here with the name of Schleiermacher, as
having in his system a peculiar philosophic significance.
Schleiermacher's doctrine concerning Christ is this: As the
original source of Christian life. He must, while a historical
individual, at the same time be an Ideal Person, in whom
the ideal of humanity is fully realized. As the Ideal Man, i
while like all men, in virtue of the identity of His human
nature. He differs from all through the constant vigour of
His God-consciousness, which was a proper being of God
in Him, implying absolute freedom from moral taint, and
from intellectual error in all things pertaining to His mis-
sion as a religious teacher. In Christ the ideal of humanity
was for the first time realized; man as at first created fell
short of the ideal, so that Christ is the completion and
crown of the creation. It will be seen at a glance that this
Christology, though coming short of orthodoxy, rises above
the plane of naturalism into the region of the miraculous.
Christ is, if not physically, at least ethically, a miracle;
He alone of all men exhibiting in perfect and unvarying-
strength the God-consciousness, and maintaining with God
a fellowship undisturbed by sin. Now, the philosophic sig-
nificance of this Christology as taught by Schleiermacher
is, that in his theology it is a departure from the general
tendency of his system. It is a supernatural element in a
creed which is predominantly influenced by a naturalistic,
Pantheistic spirit. This inconsistency is characteristic of
Schleiermacher. He is neither a Pantheist nor a Theist in
his philosophy and theology, but a mixture of both. This
fact explains the difficulty which every reader of the Christ-
licJie Glmibe feels in clearly apprehending the author's
meaning. Schleiermacher, unlike most Germans, writes a
good pure style, and yet somehow you feel that there is a
haze upon the page which prevents you from seeing dis-
tinctly the thoughts presented. You read the passage
again with increased attention, like one straining his eyes

2o8 The Htmiiliation of Christ.

to see some object in moonlight, and still you fail to see
the idea clearly. The reason is that it is moonlight through
which you are looking — the moonlight of Christian faith
reflected from the Christian consciousness of the writer upon
the dark planet of a Pantheistic philosophy. Strauss, with
his usual sagacity, hit the truth about Schleiermacher when
he said, that he had pounded Christianity and Pantheism to
powder, and had so mixed them that no man could tell where
Pantheism ended and where Christianity began. We can-
not go wrong, however, in assuming that it was Christianity
and not Pantheism that led Schleiermacher to acknowledge
in clear unambiguous terms the sinlessness of Jesus. His
Pantheism prevented him from recognising in Christ an
incarnation of God in the sense of the creeds, and made
him willing to abandon much of the miraculous in Christ's
history, to treat as doubtful the miraculous conception, and
to resolve the resurrection into a revival to consciousness
from a state of suspended animation. But he was too much
a Christian to be capable of following Pantheism as his
leader in the ethical region. Pantheistic philosophy teaches
that it is not the way of the ideal to realize itself in an in-
dividual, but only in the species; therefore Jesus as an
individual historical person must have been more or less
morally defective like all other men. To this doctrine
Schleiermacher, with Moravian blood in his veins, and full
of reverence and love towards the Redeemer, at whatever
cost of inconsistency, could only give one answer: " Get
thee behind me, Satan." Let us honour him for his incon-
sistency, and see in it an involuntary testimony to the
force of truth, a witness to the impression of an unearthly
purity which the image of Jesus makes on every ingenuous
mind.

It is evident that the doctrine taught in the Ghnibenslehre
of Schleiermacher concerning the person of Christ cannot
pretend to be clear of all mystery. That gifted author did
his best to reduce the mystery and the miracle to a min-
imum, that he might commend his Christology to scientific
and philosophic tastes. He taught that Christ, though the
ideal man, and therefore a product of the creative energy
of God out of the common course, was nevertheless but

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Perso7i. 209

the completion of the creation, that to which the rudimen-
tary man of the first creation was destined to reach, and
towards which the human race in its onward course had
been steadily approximating. While therefore there was
certainly manifested in Christ a divine initiative, it was an
initiative which did no violence to the law of evolution;
though there was a miracle, it was a small one. But it is
vain to attempt by such representations to conciliate un-
belief A little miracle is as objectionable to Pantheistic
naturalism as a great one; the creation of a moncron, the
tudest embodiment of the principle of life, as much an
offence as the creation of a perfect man. If, therefore, the
Christology of Schleiermacher has nothing more to say for
itself than that it is an endeavour to present the faith of
the church concerning its Founder in a form which, while
retaining something distinctively Christian, shall be as in-
offensive as possible on the score of mysteriousness, it must
be pronounced an utter failure. It is useless for apologetic
purposes, and must rest its claims to acceptance on other
grounds.'

3. We come now to the views of the third party referred
to at the commencement of this lecture, whom I described
as with the naturalistic school in philosophy, but with the
supernaturalists in feeling, and as endeavouring in their
whole delineation of Christ's life and character to embrace
in the picture as much as possible of the extraordinary,
while recognising in no sphere the strictly miraculous. This
party may be designated the mediation school, or perhaps
better still, the school of Sentimcntat NatJiralis^n; and it
commands our respect by its sober, reverent manner of
handling the Gospel history, and by the array of distin-
guished writers of which it can boast, including Ewald,
Keim, and Weizsacker. In perusing the works on the life

' Views similar to those of Schleiermacher have been propounded recently by
Dr. Abbott, author of Through Nature up to Christ, and other works. Dr.
Abbott is an eclectic in philosophy, naturalistic on the physical side, supernatur-
alistic on the ethical. He represents Christ as perhaps as incapable of working
miracles such as those recorded in the Gospels as of sinning. The naivete of this
is charming. Dr. Abbott does not seem to be aware that a sin/ess Christ is as
great a miracle as a Christ who can walk on the water. Vid. Preface to Oxford
Sermons.

2IO The H^tmiliation of CJirist.

of our Lord emanating from this school, one is struck with
the extent to which they recognise the historical character
of the Gospel, in comparison with the two lives of Jesus
by Strauss, as also with the marked contrast in the whole
tone and spirit of the performances. They recognise so
, much as historically true, that you feel they would recog-
nise all, if only their philosophy would allow them. The
person of Christ, if not essentially divine and absolutely
sinless, is yet in all respects unique, a veritable xvunder;
if some of the miracles be impossible, and therefore the
narratives which record them mythical, others were actual
occurrences, especially the healing miracles, which, though
very extraordinary, were yet not contrary to or outside
the course of nature, being explicable on the principles of
" Moral Therapeutics." Even the resurrection of Jesus
was, in some respects, a reality. The appearances of the
" risen " one were not merely subjective visions, the hallu-
cinations of a heated brain; there was an objective basis
for the faith of the disciples. Not that the dead body of
Jesus came to life again, that of course was impossible; but
the spirit of Jesus, which survived His death, caused the
disciples to see these visions, sent these manifestations
from heaven as telegrams, so to speak, to assure them that
all was well, and so revive their hopes. All this is, doubt-
less, very gratifying and very reassuring to the believing
student of the evangelic narrative, tending to confirm him
in faith, and to make him confident that he is not following
cunningly-djevised fables when he accepts the whole as
simple truth, without even such abatements as an Ewald
or a Keim would make. But while accepting thankfully
the concessions of this school, we must bear in mind that
these are apt to lead us to form a more favourable judg-
ment concerning the position it occupies in contrast to
that of Strauss and other extremely negative critics than
it deserves. It may be that writers of this school go farther
than on their principles they are entitled to go, and that
Strauss, with all his brutal irreverent plainness of speech,
is the most reliable and consistent exponent of the natur-
alistic philosophy in its bearing on religious problems.
Strauss himself has no doubt on the point. In reviewing;

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 211

in the introduction to his New Life of Jesus, the works on
the same theme which had appeared after the publication
of his earlier Life, Strauss notices the views of Keim as ex-
pressed in an academical address on the human develop-
ment of Jesus Christ, comparing them with those of Renan.
While admitting Keim's superiority to Renan in some
respects, e. g. in his appreciation of the respective merits
of the Synoptics and of John, he thinks him inferior to the
Frenchman in this, that, while holding Jesus to be a purely
human person, he is nevertheless'not willing that He should
be one of many, but insists on His being a unique individ-
ual on whose mediation all humanity depends. This idea
of Christ he characterizes as sentimental, and he expresses
the conviction that the error of supposing it possible to
reconcile the claim of a full and complete humanity in
Jesus with that of a unique being elevated above humanity
would much more clearly appear if Keim would undertake
to write a detailed life of Jesus/ What Strauss desired,
Keim has done, and in the GcscJiichte Jesn von Nazara we
have the means of judging how far naturalism can go in
recognising the exceptional in the person and history of
the Saviour. Now my verdict is that Strauss was right
when he affirmed, that on the principles of naturalism you
cannot make Christ an exceptional unique person, but must
be content to regard Him, as Renan has done, as a very
remarkable man, and to recognise Him as the originator of
spiritual religion, just as you recognise Socrates as the origi-
nator of philosophy, and Aristotle of science, that is, on the
understanding that many attempts preceded these masters,
and that since their time important improvements have been
made, and may yet be made, but still without impeaching
the eminent position generally conceded to these great
original founders. While highly appreciating much that is
excellent in the work, and greatly valuing its positive and
reverent spirit, I must nevertheless say that what I find in
Keim's History of Jesus of Nazareth is this: Naturalism by
inflated exaggerated language striving hard to do justice to
Xhe extraordinajym its subject without recognising anything
supernatural. It is a case of the frog trying to blow itself

1 New Life of festts, i. 45.

212 The Humiliation of Christ.

out into the dimensions of the ox. The very style of the
work reveals the impossibility of the attempted task; a
remark applicable to Ewald also, who belongs to the same
school of sentimental naturalism. Always, when writers
of this school come to deal with a hard problem, such as
the miracles of Jesus, or His assertion of a peculiar relation
to God, or His resurrection, they lose themselves in long
involved sentences charged with mystic poetic phraseology,
from which it is impossible to extract any distinct idea.
Strauss remarks, in reference to Ewald's treatment of the
resurrection of Jesus, that his long, inflated rhetoric con-
tains literally no fragment of an idea beyond what had been
said by himself in his first Leben much more clearly, "though
assuredly with far less unction." This remark is perfectly
just. I remember the feeling of perplexity created in my
mind on reading Ewald's remarks on the resurrection in
his work on the history of Christ.' I supposed at the time
that the obscurity was simply an idiosyncrasy of the writer,
or, it might be, the effect of ignorance in the reader; till
by and by it dawned upon me that Ewald's obscurity, like
Schleiermacher's, was the result of his attempting to serve
two masters. The drift of the whole discussion is: the
resurrection did not, could not, take place, but the beauti-
ful dream must be dealt with tenderly, and its reality denied
with as much sentiment as if you meant to affirm it. The
same observation applies to Keim's manner of dealing with
similar topics. He is a sentimental anti-supernaturalist,
who tries hard to affirm, while denying the supernatural
element. The charge of sentimentalism he would not in-
deed resent, for he not only admits, but claims as a merit,
a " pectoral " colouring in his delineation of the great
biography.

As it is very important to be convinced of the illegitimacy
of this attempt to reconcile faith and scepticism, and to un-
derstand that we must either go further than Keim or
Ewald in belief, or not so far, I may briefly explain Keim's
mode of dealing with the miraculous in Christ's history be-
fore considering the view held by him and others of the
same school concerning the person of Christ and His po-

' The fifth volume of his History of Israel.

Modem Humanistic Theories of Ckrisfs Person. 213

sition in the universe. As already remarked, Keim, in
common with all writers of the same school, recognises to
a far greater extent than Strauss the historical character
of even the more remarkable passages in Christ's life as re-
lated in the Gospels. After all necessary deductions, he
admits that the Gospels make on every sound mind the im-
pression that in their narratives they do not rest simply on
late legends and recent inventions, and that beyond doubt
they contain many genuine historical facts, and possibly
still more most genuine words of Jesus, and that it is not
credible that the great deeds interwoven with the story are
fictions. At the same time, being naturalistic in his phil-
osophic view-point, he cannot afford to accept all the Gos-
pel '* miracles" as historical; he can admit only those which,
however wonderful, can be conceived to have had a natu-
ral cause. To this class belong the miracles of healing:
Our author thinks that though Jesus came not to do mighty
works, but to preach, yet He could not avoid becoming a
healer of disease. Events carried him on into this new
path, not to be called " a false path," seeing that through
it Jesus entered on a truly divine career. The trust of men
and their misery pressed around the new teacher and de-
sired His help, though in Galilee and Capernaum there
might be no want of physicians, male and female. The
synoptic Gospels indicate by their manner of narration that
this was the way the healing miracles began; they ascribe
not at the beginning, or even at all, the initiative to Jesus,
but to those who came seeking help. The sick came to
Him, He intensely sympathized with them; the question
arose: Do this need of the people, and their appeal for help
on the one hand, and my sympathy on the other, not in-
dicate a new department of labour, and constitute a call to
add to my work as a spiritual physician that of one who
heals the diseases of the body } The heart of Jet-us an-
swered Yes to this question; and so He set Himself to heal
the sick, which He did simply by a word, a word of faith
acting on faith in the recipient of benefit. And, strange
to say, by the two combined, the faith of Jesus revealing
itself in confident words, and the faith of the sick exhibited
in no less confident expectations, remarkable cures were

214 ^^^ Humiliation of Christ.

wrought: diseases of body and mind yielded to the united
faith-storm (Glaubensturm) of healer and healed 1 How
were these cures brought about ? Keim discusses all the
various hypotheses that have been suggested, such as that
the cures were strictly medical, effected by the professional
knowledge of Jesus, or that they were produced by magic
arts or by magnetism, or that they were answers to prayer.
Rejecting all these hypotheses, he maintains that the cures
must be held to spring in the first place from the spiritual
life of Jesus, associated with His human will-force, and
with His religious confidence, and also with that trait of
deep sympathy, of inwardness, of devotion, which He
brought to the victims of the world's woe; and in the second
place, from the receptivity of the healed, for as spirit works
primarily on spirit, the co-operation of the patient is indis-
pensable, and, as a matter of fact, we see that stress was
laid on it by Jesus. He did mighty works only where there
was faith. Regarded by the simple folks of Galilee as
the great man, as the prophet, as the deliverer, He by His
love awakened love, by His faith called forth faith sufficient
to alter the physical life course.

Marvellous results of the Glaubensturm and the moral
therapeutics so eloquently described. Pity only that the
Glaubensturm could not be more frequently raised, and
that moral therapeutics, which Matthew Arnold assures us
have not been sufficiently studied,^ were not more generally
understood ! Speaking seriously, what are we to think of
this new theory of moral therapeutics, by which men like
Keim seek to reconcile their acceptance of the healing
*' miracles " with their philosophic naturalism .-' It looks
very like a device to hide from themselves their true po-
sition, which is that of men drawn in two different direc-
tions, towards faith by the general impression of historical
truth made on their minds by the Gospel narratives,
towards unbelief by their philosophy. Moral therapeutics
is a convenient phrase for a dark mysterious region into
which those can take refuge who halt between two opin-
Jons. If it be true, as Matthew Arnold says, that moral
therapeutics have not been sufficiently studied, it is per-
' In Literature and Dosrnia,

Modern HiLmanistic Theories of Chrisfs Person. 2 1 5

haps well for him and the like of him; for it is the darkness
of the subject that makes it serve their turn. If ever moral
therapeutics should be thoroughly studied, and the con-
clusion come to that there is not much in them, then men
like Keim and Arnold will be forced to do violence to their
historical sense, and to treat all the miraculous narratives
together as alike legendary. Meantime they can talk in
high-flown sentimental style about the Glaiibcnstunn and
the marvels it can work, without risk of immediate scien-
tific contradiction not to be gainsaid.

It is easy to show that Keim's manner of dealing with
the resurrection of Jesus is equally unsatisfactory. His view
amounts to this: The resurrection did not happen, yet
something happened, something corresponding to the phe-
nomena of modern spiritualism, that something was not a
miracle in the strict sense, but it was a " wiuidcr;" " a wun-
der," says Weizsacker, whose opinion on this topic is sub-
stantially the same as Keim's, "as truly as was the whole
history or the person of Jesus." ^ It is not surprising that
Strauss in his new Leben Jesii expressed himself as curious
to see what Keim would make of the resurrection. " Having
renounced," he remarks, "the visions spoken of by Renan,
and generally excluded the supernatural from his treat-
ment of the subject, there seems no other hypothesis open
to him but that of suspended animation. If so, he comes
at last to the signal fiasco of falling into the wake of Schlei-
ermacher, whose views it was his ambition to surpass in
point of historical accuracy." Keim has not fallen into
that fiasco certainly, but he has come to a conclusion which
is neither one thing nor another, and which Strauss ap-
parently, with all his mental resources, was unable even to
imagine. The old theft hypothesis adopted by Reimarus
and kindred spirits he knew; the swoon hypothesis, ac-
cording to which Jesus did not die on the cross, held by
Schleiermacher and others, he was also acquainted with;
the h}^pothesis of subjective visions, creatures of a heated
brain, he himself strenuously advocated;'' but as for this

« Untersuchiingen iiher die Evangelische Geschi elite, p. 573.
2 Dr. Abbott in Philochristus seems to adopt this hypotliesis. He speaks of the
visions as continuing for little less than a year, "insomuch that if any one should

2i6 The Humiliation of Clu'ist.

new spiritualistic hypothesis of Keim's, which resolves the
appearances of the risen Christ into objective though im-
material manifestations, telegraphic messages from the de-
parted Master to His disciples, he neither had seen it in
books, nor had it entered into his mind to conceive it.

Let me now illustrate the peculiar characteristics of this
school of theologians by the manner in which they con-
ceive and represent the person of Christ. As I remarked
on a former page, Keim does not recognise the sinlessness
of Jesus; and a similar remark applies to Weizsacker, who
speaks of Christ's "sinlessness" as consisting in single-
hearted devotion, and of His perfection as similar to that
of Paul or any other devoted man. Nevertheless, while re-
fusing to acknowlege the doctrine of the Church on this
point, theologians of this school assign to Christ a unique
place in His relation to God and the world. The views of
Keim on this topic are specially emphatic. Nowhere are
they expressed in a more characteristic manner than in the
author's discussion of the remarkable text in Matt. xi. 27;
which he calls Christ's great confession of sonship. After
discussing the various readings of the text, and expressing
his preference for the ancient^ as against the canonical
reading, he goes on to say: —

" Whichever form of the text we adopt we find therein the glory of Christ, and
a great testimony and personal testimony in reference to His whole position. All
is given to Him by His Father, that is, the God whom He here for tlie first time
distinctly calls His Father, in contrast to all other men. The all things given are
primarily those babes, the kernel of the people, to whom the Father has sliown the

adventure to set forth all the manifestations of Jesus, and the time and place and
manner of each, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that
should be written," pp. 413, 414. Such long continuance Keim holds to be neces-
sary to the vision hypothesis, and the fact that there is no evidence of anything of
the kind, he holds to be conclusive against it. Having referred to Philochristiis,
I may remark that it may fairly be classed with the literature of sentimental Natur-
alism. In this interesting book the story of Christ is told in the name of one of
His disciples, and a strange and incongruous combination of first century faith
and reverence with nineteenth century scepticism is the result.

' "No man knew the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father," the
clauses in our canonical Gospel being inverted and the tense changed. The Gnos-
tics preferred this form because it supported their doctrine that the God of the Old
Testament was not the God of the New, as it made Christ claim to be the first
teacher of the Fatherhood of God.

Modern HMinanistic Theories of Chi'ist's Person. 2 \*]

Son; but likewise all Messianic rights anions; men, which the faith of the people
lec^itiinizes, and the unbelief of the wise avails not to frustrate. But what pre-
cisely are those mysterious intangible Messianic rights ? He tells us plainly in the
sequel. No one knew the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father,
and he to whom He reveals. His rights. His privilege, His singularity lies, above
all, in the through Him for the first time completed knowledge of the Father, and
in His becoming known to the humanity whom the Father gives Him, whilst He
gives it the knowledge of the Son. It is, in short, the representation of the highest
spiritual truths, as the exclusive mediator of which He, at once revealer and re-
vealed, is appointed for a believing obedient world of men. In this great thesis
lie three mighty utterances. He is the first and only one who through Ilim and
through God has reached the knowledge of God the Father. In the second place,
as He knows God, so God has known Him. He has known God as P'ather, as
Father of men, and yet more as His own Father. God has known Him as Son,
as Son among many, and yet more as the One among many, and exclusively re-
lated to each other. Each to the other a holy, worthy to be known, searched,
discovered secret, they (Father and Son) incline towards each other with love, to
discover each other, to enjoy each other, with self-satisfying delight, resting on
equality of spiritual activity, of being, of nature. It the third place, this self-
contained world of Father and Son opens itself to the lower world, to men, only
by a free act, because they are pleased to open themselves up and to admit whom
they choose to fellowship, and because the Father is still greater than the Son,
even when the Son upon earth speaks to the ears of men; so it is finally not the
Son but the Father who is the decisive revealer, interpreting to the spirits and
hearts of men the Son, and in the Son Himself admitting the babes, excluding the
wise and understanding."

More briefly he says again: —

"This place is, as no other, the interpreter of the Messiah-thought of Jesus. If
we desire to reduce it to its simplest expression, it may be said that Jesus sought
His Messiahship in His world historical spiritual achievement, (hat He mediated
for humanity the highest knowledge of God, and the most complete blessed life
in God." 1

The bare reading of this passage suffices to convince one
that the writer is wading beyond his depth. How per-
plexing the second of the three thoughts he finds in the
text, on the assumption that the speaker is no more than
man, and is distinguished from other men only by His more
intimate knowledge of and fellowship with God, a knowledge
and fellowship even in His case not absolutely perfect !
The fellowship of Father and Son rests, we are told, on
equality of spiritual activity, of being, of nature, and yet all
that Christ here claims has for its fact-basis, according to
our author, only this, that He was the Inbringer of a higher,

' Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, ii. 384.

2i8 The Humiliation of Christ.

more satisfying religion, the religion of Christians, the
worship of the Father in spirit and in truth. If this were
true, it would be better, with Strauss, to deny the gen-
uineness of the saying reported by the evangelist in the
text cited, on the ground of its mystic, pretentious,
superhuman character, than, with Keim, to retain it as the
unnatural extravagant utterance of one who was neither
more nor less than the first teacher of a new and compar-
atively excellent religion. The words are natural and
sober only in the mouth of one who is something more and
higher than this; even one who occupies the position to-
wards God, and performs the functions towards the world
of the Johannine Logos, who was with God before He be-
came man, and who is the light of every man that com-
eth into the world. The saying takes us out of the histor-
ical incarnate life of the speaker into the sphere of the
eternal and divine. The claim to be the exclusive revealer
of God the Father of itself justifies this assertion. For it
does not mean that men who through want of opportunity
know not Him, the historical Christ, must on that account
be without such knowledge of God as is necessary unto
salvation. It means that He is the light of every man
in any land or in any age who has light, and that
through Him every one is saved that is saved in any place
or time; and that is a claim which could rationally be ad-
vanced only by one concerning whom the affirmations con-
tained in the opening sentence of John's Gospel could be
made: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God."

4. I might here conclude this survey of the literature of
naturalistic Christology, but as I have undertaken to give
some account of current opinions respecting the Author of
our holy faith, I could not well avoid saying something on a
phase of thought which can scarcely be said to have any
philosophic basis, and of which the chief interest is its
crudity, which is neither orthodox nor heterodox, simply
because it stops short of the point at which orthodoxy and
heterodoxy diverge. Probably the best representative of
this nondescript school in England is the Rev. H. R. Haweis,
one of the pulpit celebrities of London in connection with

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 1 1 9

the Established Church, and author of several well-known
books in which opinions on all manner of present-day topics
are very freely expressed ; whose popularity as a preacher and
as a writer may be accepted as an indication that his way
of thinking hits the taste of many. Mr. Haweis is emphat-
ically a child of the Zeitgeist, and yields himself with un-
hesitating submission to the inspiration of the spirit of the
age. He does not believe in miracles in the sense of events
which have no natural causes. " As far as I can see," he
says, "there are no (Sav'wlQ fiats in the sense of things hap-
pening without adequate causes. From a close observation
of the world about us, one and another event supposed to
be by divine fiat is now seen to be due to natural causes."'
This, however, does not prevent him from accepting most
of the miracles recorded in the Bible — miracles of all sorts,
miracles of healing, miracles of prophetic foresight, miracu-
lous answers to prayer; because he thinks that for all such
miracles a natural cause can be assigned. He finds the key
that unlocks all mysteries in animal niagnetisvi. Priests
and prophets were men endowed with magnetic and spirit-
ual gifts; hence their power to do things which seem miracu-
lous, to see the future, to pass through fire unharmed, like
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; to tame wild beasts,
like Daniel in the lions' den. In Christ and His apostles
the magnetic and spiritual forces culminated. " God, who
chose to speak to man through the man Christ Jesus, who
thus revealed the divine nature under the limitation of
humanity, also chose that Jesus Christ should take in the
highest degree all the natural powers which were bestowed
on humanity, both as regards magnetic force and spiritual
receptiveness." ^ Hence the healing miracles; hence also
the frequent modus operandi by the use of magnetised sub-
stances, "as when he made clay and anointed the blind man's
eyes, and sighed or breathed hard upon him, another prac-
tice well known to magnetic doctors now." Magnetism also
explains answers to prayer, whether recorded in the Bible or
occurring in Christian experience now; for the magnetic ele-
ment is the one thing common to those in the flesh and out
of the flesh. And by prayer we put ourselves en rapport with

1 Speech in Season, p. 243. * Ibid. p. 49.

2 20 TJie Huniiliatio7i of Christ.

disembodied magnetisers, and receive through their mag-
netic influence the desired blessing, e.g., restored health.
No one will be surprised to find one who propounds so gro-
tesque a theory of the miraculous giving utterance to some-
what eccentric ideas on such subjects as the Trinity and
the divinity of Christ. Mr. Haweis' opinions on these topics
are certainly eccentric enough. In his way he is a believei
in a trinity, nay, he holds that every man who thinks per-
sistently about God must think of Him as trinity in unity. Foi
what, he asks, is our first idea of God } It is that of a vast,
co-ordinating, perhaps impersonal force, which brought into
form what we call the universe. This is our first rough no-
tion of God — God in the widest sense, the Father. But
this notion does not suffice; it leaves God too far off, and
we need a God that is nigh. And so we next think of God
as like ourselves, a magnified man. To us intellectually,
sympathetically, God is perfect man. This second hu-
man aspect of God is so necessary to us, that even if we
had no historical Christ at all, " we should be obliged to
make a Christ, because our mind incarnates God in the
form of Christ irresistibly and inevitably whenever we bring
definite thought to bear upon the question of a divine being
in relation to man. And such a Christ, whether ideal or
historical, will be God the Son." But my Christ, where is
He ? Is He only an idea or a past historical character ?
That will not suffice. I must have a present God with
whom I can commune, by whose influence I can be refreshed,
a God who touches me and dwells within me. God so
conceived is the Holy Ghost. And thus we have our trinity
complete, the first of the three modes of Deity being God
conceived of as creative force; the second, God conceived
of as a man; the third, God conceived of as immanent — " God
tangential." It is only a Sabellian trinity of course, as Mr
Haweis himself acknowledges, and he has no objection to
avoid the charge by identifying Manifestation with Persona-
lity, only he thinks the Church of the future is not likely to
quibble over phrases with a view of evading the heresy of
Sabellianism. From the foregoing doctrine of the Trinity we
can ourselves determine what must be our author's doctrine
concerning Christ, Christ is the second conception of God

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 221

realized as a historical fact, an expression of God under
the limitations of humanity. But it will be best to give
his view in his own words: "When I am asked to define
what I mean by Christ, I use such expressions as these.
There was something in the nature of the great boundless
source of being called God which was capable of sympathy
w :th man. That something found outward expression, and
became God expressed under the essential limitations of
humanity, in Jesus. That such a revelation was specially
necessary to the moral and spiritual development of the
human race I believe; that such revelation of God was act-
ually made to the world I believe. More than this I cannot
pledge myself to." ^

According to this view, Christ is the incarnation not of i
God, but of something in the nature of God which has
affinity to man. God Himself, in the totality of His being,
according to our author, cannot be incarnated. " There
must," he says, *' be infinite ranges in the Divine Being's rela-
tions to our world, aspects, and energies of Him that can
never be comprehended under the limitations of humanity.
But there is in Him a human aspect, like the bright side of
a planet; that side is turned towards man, expressed out-
wardly to man in man, and fully expressed in the man
Jesus Christ."^ I am at a loss how to classify this Christo-
logical speculation. In some respects it reminds one of the
kenotic theories of the Incarnation, according to which the
Son of Gad in becoming man denuded Himself of the attri-
butes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, in
order that He might be capable of living the life of a verit-
able man within the limits of humanity. Butinotherrespects
it has no affinity with the views of kenotic Christologists,
or indeed with any views that can be characterized as Chris-
tian. The incarnation taught by Mr. Haweis has more resem- 1
blance to that believed in by the worshippers of Brahma, |
than to that embodied in the creeds of the Christian Church.'
Christ is simply an emanation from the one universal sub-
stance in which are elements of all sorts, the raw material
out of which are manufactured all the individual beings which

' Thoughts for the Times, p. 82.
* Current Coin, p. 310.

222 The Humiliation of Christ.

together constitute the universe. He is the embodiment of
the human element in the eternal Substance, as the stars
are the embodiment of some other element. We should
rather say He is an embodiment, for why Christ should be
singled out as the solitary expression of the something in
God that had affinity with men does not appear. All indi-
vidual men, according to the Pantheistic theory of the
universe, are incarnations of the human element in God,
and all that can be affirmed of Christ is what Spinoza said
of Him, viz., that He is, so far as known, the wisest and
best of men. That is what Mr. Haweis would have said
had he occupied any deliberately-chosen consistent philoso-
phical standpoint; but being merely an eclectic and a child
of the Zeitgeist, under its English form, he utters opinions
on the subject of Christ's person which defy classification.

That such crude, undigested, and mondescript views
should permanently satisfy many earnest minds is not to be
expected. The only use they can serve is to be a tempor-
ary halting-place to those who, utterly out of sympathy
with the formulated doctrines of the Creed, are yet unable
to break away from Christianity and its Author. In this
respect they are full of interest. It is certainly a striking
phenomenon which is presented to our view in this nine-
teenth century in the person of such a man as Mr. Haweis,
a man regarding creeds and dogmatic systems with morbid
disgust, and yet compelled by the evangelic records to rec-
ognise in Jesus the Son of God in a sense in which the title
can be applied to no other man. To some the phenomenon
may appear a thing of evil omen, portending the disinte-
gration of the Christian faith, and the ultimate dissolution
of the Christian Church. But it has a bright, hopeful side,
as well as a dark, discouraging one. It is Christianity re-
newing its youth, making a new beginning. It is Christ,
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, presenting Him-
self to men whose minds have become theologically a
tabula rasa, and making on them, through His words of
wisdom and deeds of holy love, an impression very similar
to that which He made on the minds of His first disciples,
and to which the most appropriate expression was given in
the confession of Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the

Alodern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 223

living God." It is very much to be desired that an impres-
sion of this kind should be made at first hand on many
minds in our day; for better far is even a crude elementary
faith, right so far as it goes, which has been communicated
direct to the soul by the Father in heaven, than a more de-
veloped orthodox creed held as a tradition received from
flesh and blood. Such a faith is vital, and, like all things
living, it will grow, and as the result of growth it may ul-
timately receive as truth dogmas from which at first it
recoiled in incredulity, and so attain to the only orthodoxy
which is of any value, that which is right in the spirit as
well as in the letter, an orthodoxy of moral conviction, not
of mechanical imitation.

5. It remains now to consider the views of those who,
while advocating a theory of Christ's person similar to that
of Schleiermacher, according to which Christ is the ideal,
perfect man — and nothing more — do so, not on philosophic
grounds, but solely because they believe they can prove
that such is the view presented in Scripture. Substantially
the theory held by this school is the same as that of the
old Socinians, the main difference being, that while the
Socinians emphasized the distinction between God and
man, the modern advocates of the Ideal Man theory empha-
size the essential identity of the divine and the human,
and hence feel able to appropriate phrases and to adopt
modes of expression from which the old Socinians would
have shrunk. Thus Rothe speaks of God as incarnate in
Christ; quarrelling with orthodoxy only because it believes
in an Incarnation limited to Christ, instead of teaching, as
he does, that God is incarnate in redeemed humanity at
large, and that in the Incarnation of Christ we have only
the beginning of a process.^

The place of representative man in connection with this
theory may justly be assigned to BeyscJilag, who, in his
work on the Christology of the New Testament,^ has made
a most elaborate and ingenious attempt to show that it is
in accordance with the teaching both of our Lord and of
the apostles. Beyschlag's thesis is that Jesus Christ was

' Dogmatik^ ZweiterTheil, erste Abtheilunfj, p. 153.
2 Die Ckristologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 1866,

2 24 ^^^ Humiliation of Christ.

the divine idea of humanity for the first time realized ir
history, the perfect man, and just because the perfect man
the Son of God, the natures of God and of man being essen-
tially identical. This he holds to be the doctrine taught
not only in the synoptical Gospels, but even in the fourth
Gospel, here joining issue with the great founder of the
Tubingen school of criticism, Dr. Baur. As is well known
to those familiar with his writings, Baur discovers in the
New Testament three distinct types of Christology, the first
and lowest being that of the synoptical Gospels, the second
and intermediate the Pauline, and the third and highest
that of the fourth Gospel. The first is Ebionitic in its char-
acter, the Christ of the first three Gospels being a mere man
endowed by the Holy Ghost with gifts and graces fitting for
His Messianic office. In the second, Pauline type of Chris-
tology, Christ is still only a man, but He is a man deified —
a man placed in a central position towards the universe
corresponding to the universalistic views of Christianity
advocated by the apostle of the Gentiles, the first-born of
every creature, the head and lord of creation, worthy to
receive divine honour and worship of all. In the third type
of Christology — that set forth in the fourth Gospel — Christ
ceases to be veritable m.an, and becomes a God who has
assumed a human body that He may become manifest to
the world. Beyschlag, on the other hand, contends that
the Christology of the fourth Gospel is essentially the same
as that of the first three, the proof offered of this proposition
forming part of an attempt to establish the Johannine
authorship of that Gospel. Beyschlag says in effect, there
is no need to stand in doubt as to Johannine authorship so
far as the Christology of the fourth Gospel is concerned.
For the Christology of that Gospel is just the Christology
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In all four Gospels one and
the same Christ is found — a Christ who, when He calls
Himself the Son of Man, means to assert that He is the man
par excellence, the ideal man in whom all humanity's pos-
sibilities are realized, and who, when He calls Himself the
Son of God, means to assert no metaphysical identity of
nature, but only to claim for Himself a sonship based on
ethical affinity, and manifesting itself by intimate fellow-

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 225

ship of spirit, and therefore a sonship which, while in degree
peculiar to Himself, is in kind common to Him with all
good men. That Christ in the fourth Gospel much more
frequently calls Himself by the latter name than in the
other three, is simply due to the fact of his being placed in
circumstances which make that natural in the Johannine
representation. ^\x\.\n\\2X oi \.\\& pre-existcnce ? Is that not
a peculiar feature in the Johannine Christology .^ Yes,
Beyschlag replies, there is very notably a doctrine of pre-
existence taught in the Gospel of John. But then the pre-
existence is not such as the creeds of the Church mistakenly
represented it. It is the pre-existence not of a real person,
member of an eternally-existing essential trinity, but of a
divine idea, an idea which is at once the Ebenbild of God
--a mirror in which God sees His own image reflected —
and the Urbild of man, the archetypal thought according
to which God made man, destined in the course of the ages
to be realized as it never had been before, in all its plero-
matic fulness, in Jesus Christ. And when Christ asserts
His pre-existence, it is not as a recollection of a previous
conscious life in the bosom of God, but simply as an infer-
ence from His own consciousness of unity in spirit with
God. In proportion as it becomes clear to Him that He is
in perfect harmony with God, and therefore realizes the
ideal of a humanity made in God's image, it also becomes
clear to Him that He must have pre-existed as an idea in
the divine mind, and in the language of poetry or imagin-
ation may be said to have been in the bosom of the Father,
holding delightful converse with Him throughout the ages
before He was born into the world.

I cannot here attempt a detailed examination of the
proof offered by Beyschlag in support of these views, but
must content myself with presenting a few samples of his
exegesis, which may enable readers to form a clearer idea
of the Christological scheme and to estimate its merits,
while they will give me an opportunity of saying a few
words on the important and interesting subject of Christ's
self-witness, or the doctrine which He taught concerning
His own person.

A prominent place in all Christological discussion Is

2 26 The Humiliatioii of CJwist.

due to the question, What is the precise import of the
name which our Lord ordinarily and by preference em-
ployed to designate Himself, tlic So7i of Man ? On this
question much diversity of opinion has prevailed, some re-
garding the name as a title of dignity, others as expressive
of indignity, while a third class of interpreters think that,
as used by Christ, it combines both the senses. Beyschlag
is very decidedly of opinion that it is a title of dignity — is,
in fact, a synonym for Messiah. He thinks the source of
this name for Messiah is the text in Daniel concerning one
like unto the Son of Man; herein differing from Schleier-
macher, who regarded this opinion as a baseless fancy; and
he finds no difficulty in determining from the prophetic text
the precise import of the title. " His appearance in heaven
seems to point at a not human, but a divine essence, while
yet the name Son of Man presupposes not a divine, but a
human essence." The solution of the difficulty thus pre-
sented is found in the consideration that in the idea of the
Son of Man the human is not thought of in opposition to
the divine, but as in affinity with it, so that the Messiah of
Daniel is the heavenly man. He is man, not God; for He
is conceived of as distinct from and dependent on God, but
He is higher than any prophet; He is in heaven before He
comes to earth to assume His kingdom, at home, so to
speak, among the clouds of heaven, a companion of God,
of celestial descent and heavenly essence. Hence it fol-
lows that He pre-existed before His appearance on the
earth; but whether the pre-existence be real or ideal only,
a pre-existence in the council and will of God cannot be
decided from the passage: the question was not present to
the mind of the prophet. Combining this result with the
Bible doctrine of the creation of man in God's image, the
writer finally arrives at this formula: the in-heaven-pre-
existing Son of Man was the archetype of humanity, the
image of God, of whom mention is made in the creation-
history. Furnished with this idea, he comes to the New
Testament and endeavours to show that it is the key to the
true meaning of the many texts in the Gospel, some fifty
in all, in which the title Son of Man occurs. This
Messianic title in the mouth of Jesus, we are told, signifies

Modern Hu7na7iistic Theot ies of Christ' s Person. 227

that He is not a man as other men, but tJie man, the abso-
lute, human-divine man; and three passages are singled out
in which the meaning is said to be specially apparent
These are Mark ii. 10 (Matt. ix. 6; Luke v. 24); Mark ii.
27, 28 (Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5); and Matt. xii. 32 (Luke
xii. 10). In the first it is said of the Son of Man that He
hath power 011 the earth (iniriii yfji) to forgive sin. The
expression italicized is assumed to be set over against
an unexpressed hv rw ovpavw, and the following train of
thought is extracted from the text: In heaven above God
Himself, of course, forgives sin, but that His grace may be
available to men He must have an organ upon earth, a
Son of Man among the children of men, who knows the
whole will of God in heaven, who as man can speak and
act as one in complete unity with God, that is, the Messiah,
as the man who is absolutely one with God, and the very
image of God. In the second passage Christ claims for
Himself, as Son of Man, lordship over the Sabbath day.
Beyschlag thinks the Messianic import of the title in this
place very clear, "since only as the Messiah can Jesus have
the power to set aside a Mosaic, yea divine ordinance, like
that of the Sabbath." He lays stress on the relation be-
tween the two assertions: the Sabbath was made for man,
and the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, and thinks that
the idea intended is this, that the Son of Man is archetype,
prince, head of men, in whom the superiority to the Sab-
bath, in principle belonging to humanity, becomes an
actual authority to break through its prohibitions. The
third text is the well-known one concerning blasphemy
against the Son of Man. Our author's comments thereon
are as follows: " Let us consider the relation here indicated
between the Son of Man and the Holy Ghost. It is a
relation of distinction, and yet of close connection. The
distinction is, that in the Son of Man the revelation of God
to men is made in mediated, and, so far, veiled form, there-
fore may be misunderstood, so that the blasphemer can
always have the benefit of the prayer, " Forgive them,
they know not what they do;" but in the Holy Ghost the
revelation is made immediately, inwardly, therefore unmis-
takably; therefore there is no excuse for the blasphemer.

2 28 The Humiliation of Christ.

At the same time, the Holy Ghost is not thought of as
above the Son of Man, but in Him. The Son of Man is
the man who has the spirit of God in His entire fulness,
whose inmost though unrecognised essence is the Holy
Spirit, the man whose human appearance is the medium of
the absolute revelation of God. To this corresponds the
fact, obvious in the text, that the blasphemy of the Son of
Man is represented as the most heinous of pardonable
sins." ' These are very questionable interpretations of
familiar sayings of Christ. Regarding the last of the three,
in particular, I am very sure that it misses the point.
" Offences against the Son of Man are pardonable, but that
is all; such sins form the extreme limit of the forgivable,"
so gives the sense Beyschlag, very erroneously in my
judgment. Jesus did not mean to represent sins against
Himself as barely forgivable; but rather, with characteristic
magnanimity, as easily forgivable, because not more heinous
than sins against any other good man, and due to the same
general causes. He looked upon it as a thing of course
that He should be exposed to misunderstanding, calumny,
criticism, contradiction, and that just because He was the
Son of Man; and He warned the Pharisees of their danger,
not because they were sinning against Him, the ideal Man,
but because they were not sinning against Him through
ignorance, misapprehension, and prejudice, but against the
Holy Ghost; being convinced in their hearts that Beelzebub
could not do the things they saw Him do, yet pretending
to believe that he could and did. The second passage —
that relating to the lordship of the Son of Man — does not,
any more than the one just referred to, require for its inter-
pretation that we understand the name Son of Man as a
title of dignity. Christ claimed power to exercise lordship
over the Sabbath in the interest of humanity, on the ground
of His sympathy with mankind — a far more reliable inter-
preter of the divine purpose in the institution than the
merciless rigour of the Pharisees. The Sabbath, He con-
tended, was made for man; it is a gift of God to weary,
burdened sons of Adam. Charity was the motive of the
institution, and I, just because I am the Son of Man, heart

> Chrisiologie, p. 24.

Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 229

and soul in sympathy with humanity, and bearing its
burden on my spirit, am Lord of the Sabbath day, fitted
and entitled to say how it may best be observed. The
first of the three texts is more obscure, though one can
have no hesitation in pronouncing Beyschlag's interpreta-
tion forced and artificial, as even he himself seems to feel,
from the apologetic manner in which he introduces it,
asking: " Do we draw too much from the words when we
find in them the following train of thought ? " To my view,
our Lord meant to meet with a redoubled, intensified nega-
tive the Pharisaic notions in respect to the forgiveness of
sin. They viewed God's relation to sin altogether from the
side of His majesty and holiness. The pardon of sin was
an affair of state, performed with a grudge, and with awe-
inspiring ceremony, and competent only to the divine king.
Christ regarded God's relation to sin from the side of His
grace and charity. In effect. He says to His sanctimonious
hearers: God is not such an one as ye imagine Him. He
is not severe and implacable, and slow to pardon offences,
and jealous of His prerogative in the rare grudging exercise
of mercy. He is good and ready to forgive, and He has no
desire to monopolize the privilege of forgiving. He is will-
ing that it should be exercised by all in whom dwells His
own spirit of love, that men on earth should imitate the
Father in Heaven, and say to a penitent: Thy sins be for-
given. My right to forgive rests on this, that I am the Son
of Man, the sympathetic friend of the sinful, full of the
grace and charity of heaven; but as this is a reason which
ye seem unable to appreciate, let me show you in another
way that I have the authority ye call in question by heal-
ing the pardoned one's physical malady.

In these texts, as I understand them, the title Son of
Man signifies the sympathetic man, quiniJiil hiimani aliemim
piitat. In other texts the title seems rather to signify the
unprivileged man par excellence. To this class belongs the
familiar pathetic s'aying: "The foxes have hole?, and the
birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not
where to lay His head." Beyschlag, indeed, claims this
text also as a support to his theory, paraphrasing it, though
Son of Man, yet such is my lot. But surely it is far more

230 The Humiliation of Christ.

natural to find in the name the reason of the fact stated,
and to read, Such is my lot because I am the Son of Man,
and nothing else is to be looked for in my company. This
construction is further recommended by the consideration
that it removes from the saying a tone of querulousncss
which, on the other view, seems to characterize it, but
which was utterly foreign to Christ's temper. Christ spoke
of Plis lot as a homeless one, not as a very hard, unworthy
lot for Him, the Ideal Man, but as a matter of course for
the unprivileged Son of Man, in the same way as lie
regarded blasphemy against Himself as a commonplace
occurrence, not as a specially heinous offence; for why
should not He, the Son of Man, be evil spoken of as well as
any other son of man } So, in the parable of the tares, the
lesson of patience with evil in the kingdom is tacitly en-
forced by the consideration that the Son of Man has to
endure the counterworking of the evil one, and takes it
patiently. I, the Son of Man, have to see my labour in
sowing the seed of the kingdom marred; it is a part of the
curriculum of trial through which I must pass. I meekly
accept my lot as the Son of Man; see that ye bear kindred
experiences in the same spirit.

These two attributes, then, at least, are denoted by the
title under consideration. The Son of Man is the luipriv-
ileged man and the sympathetic man. But He is more.
For there are texts in which the Son of Man, now humbl&d
and unprivileged, is spoken of as the expectant of a king-
dom, texts in which a conscious reference to the passage
in Daniel is apparent, showing that it is at least one of the
Old Testament sources of the title. ^ These texts show
that if Jesus was emphatically the unprivileged man, He
was so not by constraint, but voluntarily and from philan-
thropic motives, and that His position as the Man of Sor-
rows involved an incongruity between lot and intrinsic
dignity. The Son of Man is more than He seems; there
is a mystery about Him; the name assumed, while revealing
much conceals something; revealing His heart, it conceals
His dignity, it is an incognito congenial to the humour of

' Among other sources which have been suggested are the eighth psalm and
the Protevan<jelium. Keim favours the former, Hofmann the latter.

Alodcrn Humanistic Theories of Ckj'ist's Person. 231

a loving lowly nature. I agree, therefore, with such writers
as Keim, who recognise in this title, Son of Man, the ex-
pression of a double consciousness, that of one whose present
state and mind are lowly, and that of one who knows that
a high destiny awaits Him; the former phase of conscious-
ness being the one mainly turned outwards towards the
world; the latter, the one kept in the background or in the
shade — the side turned inwards, away from the light. And
with special reference to Beyschlag's theory, I must main-
tain that the title Son of Man, as ordinarily used by Christ,
denotes rather the reality of His humanity than its ideality,
though the latter as a fact I do not deny. The reality is
the thing emphasized, with what motive may be a question.
Dorner and others say, to bring out the truth that human-
ity is not the native element of the speaker, and just on
that account is the thing which needs to be asserted.
Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man, because He is conscious
of being more than man. It is doubtful if we are entitled
to go so far, though certainly, while it is not possible to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of opponents that a divine
consciousness forms the background of the human con-
sciousness directly expressed by the title, the view of
Dorner fits well into the doctrine of Christ's divinity, as-
sumed to be established by other evidence. I prefer to
find the secret of the emphasis with which Jesus asserted
the reality of His humanity in the spirit of humility and
love which regulated His whole conduct. He called Him-
self Son of Man as the bearer of the grace of the divine
kingdom, even as He called Himself Christ as the head oi
the kingdom, to whom all its citizens owed allegiance, and
Son of God as the proper object not only of obedience but
of worship.

Into the elaborate discussion of the last-mentioned title
contained in Beyschlag's treatise I cannot enter. Suffice
it to say that in the theory now under review the two titles.
Son of Man and Son of God, are practically equivalent.
From an analysis of texts the author determines the fol-
lowing as the characteristics of Christ's divine sonship:
dependence on His heavenly Father, likeness to His Father,
and heavenly descent, implying negatively sinlessness, and

■ J-"

llic Humiliation of Christ.

positively that Christ is not an ordinary man, but the man,
the heavenly man. The chief interest of his discussion of
the Johannine account of our Lord's teaching concerning
His person turns on the manner in which he deals with the
doctrine of pre-existence. That he resolves into an ideal
pre-existence in the divine mind. As a sample of his way
of making texts conform to his theory, we may take his
remarks on the words, " Before Abraham was, I am."^ He
admits that the text is susceptible of the traditional inter-
pretation, but contends that it is equally susceptible of his,
which is to the following effect: " Jesus beyond question speaks
of Himself as the Messiah. Abraham had rejoiced to see
in vision the day of Messiah's appearing. What more
natural than the thought: Before Abraham could be upon
the earth must the Messiah have been already in heaven;
before God could choose Abraham to be the father of the
people of the promise, the content of the promise, Christ,
must have existed for God and in God." The pre-existence
asserted is thus a mere logical inference, and it is a mere
pre-existence in idea or in purpose. This may be a very
simple thought, as Beyschlag calls it, but it does not seem
a very likely thought to be introduced with a " Verily,
■verily, I say unto you." Such a solemn formula was fitted
to prevent hearers from seeing the real nature of the asser-
tion as a mere truism. If Jesus had meant nothing more
than that God's promise of a Messiah presupposed the ex-
istence in God's mind of the Messianic idea, He would
naturally have uttered the word as a matter of course, not
with the solemn preface of a " Verily, verily." Beyschlag
thinks the use of the present tense elui, I am, instead of
vnrjv, is in favour of his interpretation. Before Abraham
was, I was, would have expressed real existence; " Before
Abraham was I am," expresses merely ideal existence.
But by the same reasoning we might make out the existence
of God Himself to be merely ideal, which yet Beyschlag
does not believe it to be. For is it not written in the nine-
tieth psalm, " Before the mountains were brought forth,
ere ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from
everlasting to everlasting. Thou (art), O God." I am is

' John viii. 58.

Modern HiiJ?'.aiiistic Theoi'ies of Christ's Person. 233

the proper exprer.sion to denote eternal existence; I was
would have conveyed the idea of a temporal existence,
though earlier than that of Abraham; in other words, the
phrase would have suggested an Arian idea of the pre-
existent state.

Not to go over all the texts discussed, I give just one
more sample 01 Beyschlag's style of interpretation. In
John xiii. 3 he finds the culmination of the process by which
Jesus gradually came to know who He was, — viz. the Ideal
Man, Ebenbild of God, Urbild of man, — and what therefore
-must have been His history before He came into the world.
The evangelist, we are told, expressly signalizes that the
peculiar consciousness of Jesus first reached the acme of
clearness on the threshold of death. When, in the intro-
duction of the history of the passion, he writes: Jesus,
knozviiig that the Father had given all tilings into His hands,
and that He ivas come from God, and went to God, this obser-
vation were wholly idle and unintelligible, if thereby he
did not mean to say that Jesus then became more distinctly
and clearly conscious than ever before of His relation to
God, His origin from Him, and His return to Him. In this
instance Beyschlag's ingenious but artificial exegesis seems
to me to reach the acme of unsatisfactoriness. In the
words quoted, the evangelist expresses in the first place
his own sense of the magnitude of the condescension of
his Lord, by contrasting the intrinsic dignity of Christ with
the lowly act He performed in the supper chamber. He
to wliom all things were given, who came forth from God,
and who was about to go to God, did thus and thus. He
alludes to Christ's consciousness of all this (f/SM? o 7?/(Joi;s),
that the act recorded may appear not merely outwardly an
act of condescension, but an act expressive of a wonderful
spirit of condescension. He who did this had not forgot
who He was and what was His high destiny. All the truth
about Himself was present to His mind, as at other times,
so also then. The intention of the narrator is not to assert
a heightening of the self-consciousness of Christ, but simply
to remark for the sake of contrast that it was there. The
main question of course is, what were the contents of that
self-consciousness. Into that subject I do not here go at

234 The Humiliation of Christ.

length; only I may remark, that Beyschlag's theory seems
to me to make Christ's consciousness a very artificial one.
He ascribes to Himself a great many high-sounding titles,
and makes concerning Himself a great many extraordinary
affirmations, which have hitherto led the whole catholic
Church tb believe that nothing could do justice to them
short of the doctrine of a personal pre-existence before the
Incarnation, but which we are given to understand are
nothing more than inferences (or intuitions) from a certain
opinion Jesus entertained of Himself as the Ideal Man.
Starting with a purely human consciousness of His relation
to God, as His sinless, holy child. He comes by and by to
think of Himself as " the Son of Man " prophesied of in
Daniel, the thought dawning on Him at the Jordan when
He was baptized; and this idea once conceived gives birth
to all the mystic utterances recorded in the Gospels; utter-
ances rising ever higher and higher, and revealing an ever
increasing clearness of consciousness — one notable stage in
the development being signalized by the saying recorded in
Matt. xi. 27, and the climax being reached on the occasion
of the feet-washing, when Jesus at length knew, as He
never knew before, that all things were delivered to Him,
that He came forth from God, and was about to return to
God. Could a consciousness having such a genesis be pro-
perly called knowledge .■' Every one of the m.ystic affirma-
tions made by Jesus concerning Himself is simply an infer-
ence from a theory. Christ speaks not as one conscious
of certain things as matters of fact concerning Himself, but
as a Platonic philosopher, out of the depths of His inner
consciousness constructing a theory concerning His person.
He infers His pre-existence from the notion of His being
the Ideal Man, just as Plato inferred, from his way of con-
ceiving the universe, the eternal existence of the ideas of
all things in the divine mind. And the pre-existence is
of the same sort. It is merely a notional existence. The
author indeed is not willing to allow this. He maintains
that the pre-existence is real as well as ideal. The pre-
existence, he tells us, is in the highest sense real, and even
personal in a sense, for how can the eternal image {Ebenbild)
of the personal God, in which God reflects Plimself, be

Modern Hu7nanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 23$

otherwise than personal ? yet over against the existence
of the historic personality it is ideal. It is real not only
because all that God thinks and wills here is in Him already
reality, but because there can be nothing more real than
the divine essence as God represents it to Himself, and
distinguishes it from Himself in order to reveal it outwardly ;
ideal, because in comparison with the historical person it
is not identical therewith, but is the Urbild, the eternal
idea, the inter-divine principle of this historical person.
' It will be evident to every one who endeavours to form
to himself a distinct conception of the pre-existence of
Christ as represented by Beyschlag, that the theory advo-
cated by this author with much ingenuity does not, any
more than the theories previously examined, escape from
the charge of mystery. For myself, I confess my inability
to form any clear idea of what the pre-existent state of the
Logos is in this theory. It is neither one thing nor another;
it hovers between idea and reality; it is impersonal, yet
shares in the personality, thought, and will of God. And
while speculatively indefinite, the theory has no practical
compensations to commend it. It is liable to the grave
objection that it includes the possibility of seeing in the
Incarnation a manifestation of gracious, free condescension.
Christ did not come into the world, freely, to save sinners.
He was sent, as we are all sent, without knowledge, con-
sciousness, or choice; sent in the sense of being born into
an existence which dates from birth. All beyond, the so-
called pre-existence, is simply a nimbus engendered by a
poetic imagination.

In closing this review of modern humanistic theories of
Christ's person, are we not justified in repeating the ques-
tion: To whom shall we go to escape mystery .-* We cannot
go to Baur, for there we meet with a Christ whom theory
requires to be sinful, while all the facts testify to sinless-
ness. Neither can we go to Schleiermacher, for there we
meet with a Christ who is a moral miracle, while in the
interest of naturalistic philosophy He is not allowed to be
miraculous in other respects. We cannot go to Keim, for
there we meet with a Christ who is a natural-supernatural
being, a mere man, yet something altogether exceptional

236 77^1? Humiliation of Christ.

and outside the sphere of ordinary humanity. Still less
can we go to Haweis and other popular apostles of theo-
logical liberalism, for there we meet with a Christ who is
a congeries of crudities, not to say absurdities. We cannot
even find rest to our souls in the Christ offered to our faith
by Beyschlag; for while we gladly accept Him as the ideal
of humanity realized, we cannot understand the relation
in which He stands to God, and are at a loss to know
whether what is presented to our view be the eternal Son
of the catholic theory, or something else of which we can
form no distinct idea. We therefore decide to remain with
the Christ of the creeds, feeling that if there be in Him
that which perplexes and confounds our intellect, there is
also that which gives unspeakable satisfaction to the heart;
a Christ who came from glory to save the lost, who hum-
bled Himself to become man and die on the cross; a
Christ in whom God manifests Himself as a self-sacrificing
being, and exhibits to our view the maximum of Gracious
Possibility.

LECTURE VI.

CHRIST THE SUBJECT OF TEMPTATION AND
MORAL DEVELOPMENT

We are now to consider the humiliation of Christ on its
ethical side; that is, we are to regard Christ on earth as
subject to an experience of temptation, and undergoing a
process of moral development.

I. With reference to the former of these topics, the teach-
ing of Scripture is that Christ was tempted in all respects
as we are, without sin. The task prescribed is, to present
such a view of our Lord's curriculum of temptation, as shall
hold the balance impartially between the two clauses of
the statement just quoted; allowing the subject tempted,
on the one hand, to be in all respects possible like unto
His Brethren; and on the other, preserving the sinlessness
of His nature and of His conduct inviolable. That the task
is no easy one, is shown by the history of opinion, which
presents variations ranging from the denial of everything
in Christ's human nature that could be even the innocent
occasion of temptation, to the opposite extreme of an
ascription to that nature of such inherent vitiwn as, without
external provocatives, directly involved temptations to sin
of the most violent kind.

If we ask ourselves the question. What was there in
Christ, on the supposition of His perfect sinlessness, which
helped to make temptation, in some respects at least, if not
in all, possible .'' it readily occurs to refer to the physical
infirmities of His human nature. Every being who is cap-
able of hunger and thirst, pleasure and pain, hope and fear,
joy and sorrow, is liable to be tempted; for he may be
placed in circumstances in which he is obliged to choose

238 The Humiliation of Christ.

between doing wrong and denying himself the gratification
of an appetite, a desire, or an affection in itself innocent.
If we assume that, in becoming man, Christ took unto
Himself a nature subject to such infirmities as are common
to men, then we impose on ourselves the necessity of ad-
mitting that He entered into a state involving at least some
experience of temptation. This assumption the Church
catholic has in all ages made. Damascenus but expresses
the common faith of Christians when he says: "We confess
that Christ assumed all the physical and sinless affections
of man. For He took the whole man, and all that belongs
to man save sin. These physical sinless affections are the
things which are not in our power, and which have entered
into human life through the curse pronounced upon trans-
gression— such as hunger, thirst, weariness, toil, tears, cor-
ruption, dread of death, fear, the agOiiy, whence sweat and
drops of blood." ^ Even this obvious and elementary truth,
however, has not escaped contradiction. As is well known
to students of Church history, the doctrine that Christ had
experience in His body of the infirmities above enumerated
was denied by one of the most eminent of the early Fathers,
viz. Hilary of Poitiers, who may be regarded as the rep-
resentative of one extreme in opinion on the present subject.
This Father taught in the most explicit terms (for how-
ever obscure his style, there can here be no reasonable
doubt as to his meaning), that Christ's body was not sub-
ject to pain, nor His soul to fear. In the crucifixion Christ
sustasined in His flesh the onset, but not the pain, of what
we caW the passion. When the nails were driven into His
hands, and the spear was thrust into His side, it was as
when a dart pierces water, or punctures fire, or wounds the
air; the dart retains its power of piercing and puncturing
and wounding, but does not exercise it on these objects;
i>e cause it ;i^ not in the nature of water to be pierced, or of
fire to be punctured, or of air to be wounded. The I^ord
Jesus Christ did indeed suffer when He was smitten, sus-
pended, crucified, and when He died; but the passion rush-
ing on His body, though a real passion, did not exert the

• De Fide Ort/wdoxd, lib. uL cap. xx. Tlie Greek expression for sinless physi-
cs uifirmities, as employed hy Damas., is, ra q)V(5iK(X nai ddidliXyiva vcdQrf,

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 239

nature of passion; the virtue of His body, without sense of
pain or penalty, receiving the violence of the penalty raging
against itself.^ All the other physical infirmities were
equally unreal, the outward phenomena being admitted as
matters of fact but not allowed to retain the physiological
or psychological meaning which they have for ordinary
men. Christ hungered, thirsted, and wept; but these phe-
nomena were simply an assumption of the custom or habit
of the human body, in order to demonstrate the truth of His
body. There is no evidence that Christ always ate or drank
or grieved, when He hungered or thirsted or shed tears;
but even when He did actually take food and drink, He
was not satisfying the need of His body, but simply accom-
modating Himself to custom.^ The mental affections
ascribed to Christ in the gospel record, in connection with
the passion, are explained away in similar fashion. His
fear of death is absolutely denied.' His soul-sorrow in the
garden was simply solicitude for the disciples, lest the
coming trial should prove too much for their faith; His
prayer that the cup might pass, if possible, was simply a
prayer that God would spare these disciples a trial above
what they could bear; * when He said, " My soul is exceed-
ing sorrowful even unto death,'' He did not mean, by the
expression " even unto death," to indicate that death was

' De Trinitate, lib. x. c. 23: In quo, quamvis aut ictus incideret aut vulnus
descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec
impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem passionis inferrent: ut telum aliquod aut
aquam peiforans, aut ignem compungens, aut aera vulnerans, omnes quidem has
passiones naturae r.uae infert, ut foret, ut compungat, ut vulneret: sed naturani
suam in haec passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel
pungi ignem, vel aerem vulnerari, quamvis naturae teli sit et vulnerare, et compun-
gere, et forare. Passus quidem est Dominus Jesus Christus, dum caeditur, dum
suspenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur: sed m corpus Domini irruens passio, nee
non fuit passio, nee tamen naturam passionis exseruit; dum et poenali ministerio
desaevit, et Virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit.

2 Ibid. X. c. 24: Neque enim turn cum sitivit aut esurivit aut flevit, bibisse
Dominus aut manducasse aut doluisse monstratus est; sed ad demonstrandam cor-
poris veritatem, corporis consuetudo suscepta est, ita ut naturae nostrae consuetu-
dine consuetudini sit corporis satisfactum. Vel cum potum et cibum accepit, non
se necessitati corporis, sed consuetudini tribuit.

3 Ibid. X. c. 27.

* Ibid. X. c. 37: Non ergo sibi tristis est, neque sibi orat; sed illis quos monet
orare pervigiles, ne in eos calix passionis incumbat; quern a se transire orat, ne in
his scilicet maneat.

240 The Humiliation of Christ.

the cause of His sorrow, but the end or limit of it; as only
in the things which were to happen to Him before His
death, — in the nocturnal apprehension, the scourging, the
spitting, the crown of thorns, — was there any cause for
solicitude lest the faith of His followers should fail; all that
happened afterwards, such as the miracles accompanying
the crucifixion and the resurrection, being rather fitted to
confirm their weak faith.^ As for the bloody sweat and
the ministry of angels in the garden, it being impossible to
find anything in the case of the disciples which could ac-
count for these, they are got rid of by the remark, that in
very many Latin and Greek codices no mention is made
of them; ^ and for those whom this summary course might
not satisfy, it is added, that if Christ was sad for us. He
must also have been comforted for us, and that the bloody
sweat was no sign of infirmity, because it is contrary to
nature to sweat blood, and therefore the phenomenon must
be regarded as a display of power, rather than as an effect
of weakness/

The grounds on which Hilary based this strange doketic
view of our Lord's human nature were these: Counter facts
and words recorded in the Gospels indicative of power and
triumph rather than of weakness and fear; the miraculous
birth; and the sinlessness of Christ. As to the first: how
could that body have the nature of our pain, which, unlike
our bodies, could walk without sinking on the water ? how
could He burn with thirst, who is able to give drink to the
thirsty; or endure the pangs of hunger, who could curse the
tree that refused its fruits to Him ? Again, how can He
have feared death, who voluntarily delivered Himself to the
armed band; or felt sadness in view of death, who, in ref-
erence to that very death, said: " Now is the Son of Man

' De Trinitaie, x. cc. 36, 39.

« Ibid. X. c. 41: Nee sane ignorandum a nobis est, et in Graecis et in Latinis
codicibus complurimis, vel de adveniente angelo, vel de sudore sanguinis nil
scriptum reperiri.

3 Ibid. X. c. 41: Si nobis tristis est, necesse est ut propter nos sit comfortatus;
quia qui de nobis tristis est, et de nobis comfortatus est, ea comfortatus est condi-
tione qua tristis est. Sudorem vero nemo infirmilati audebit deputare; quia et
contra naturam est sudare sanguinem. Nee infirmitas est, quod potestas, non se
cundum naturae consuetudinem, gessit.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 241

glorified; " or experienced real desertion when He uttered
the cry: " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ?"
who shortly before had said to His judges: " Henceforth
shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of
power " ? ^ As to the second ground of the theory, Hilary
held that, in consequence of the miraculous conception, the
body of Christ necessarily differed in its properties from the
bodies of ordinary men. Inasmuch as it was born of the
Virgin, it was a real body; but because it was conceived by
the power of the Holy Ghost, it was a body free from all
infirmity.^ Not formed of terrestrial elements, although
deriving its origin from the mystery of conception, the body
of the Son of Man was exempt from the evils of a merely
terrestrial body; the power of the Highest com.municating
to it His own virtue, while forming it in the Virgin's
womb.^ Finally, as to the third ground of his peculiar
theory, Hilary held himself entitled or bound to exclude
Christ's humanity from all participation in infirmity, because
of its sinlessness, which he regarded as the result of the
miraculous birth. He made no distinction between vice in
the moral sense and infirmity in the physical sense, and
from the absence of the former from the humanity of
Christ he inferred the absence of the latter. In Christ, he
held, was the truth of the human body, but not its vices,
the similitude of sinful flesh, but not the flesh of sin itself.
The Saviour's humanity, having a peculiar origin, was free
from the sins and the vices of humanity coming into being
by ordinary generation.*

' De Trinitate, x. cc. 23, 24, 27, 29, 31.

2 Ibid. X. c. 35: Genuit etenim ex se corpus, sed quod conceptum esset ex
Spiritu; habeas quidem in se sui corporis veritatem, sed non habens naturae
infirmilatem : dum et corpus illud corporis Veritas est quod generatur ex virgine:
et extra corporis nostri infirmitatem est, quod spiritalis conceptionis sumpsit
exordium.

3 Ibid. x. c. 44: Extra terreni est corporis mala, non terrenis inchoatum corpus
elementis, etsi originem filii hominis sanctus Spiritus per sacramentum conceptionis
invexit. Nempe et Altissimi virtus virtutem corporis, quod ex conceptione Sptritus
Virgo gignebat, admiscuit.

■< Ibid. x. c. 25: Habuit enim corpus, sed originis suae proprium; neque ex
vitiis humanae conceptionis existens, sed in formam corporis nostri virtutis suae
potestate subsistens: gerens quidem nos per formam servi, sed a peccatis et a vitiis
liumani corporis liber. So also c. 35: in natura ejus corporis infirmitatem naturae
corporeae non fuisse. . . . et passionem illam licet illata corporL sit, noa tamen

2^2 The HiimiliatioJi of CJudst.

It is not surprising- that men should be unwilling, or
almost unable, to believe that a theologian of such eminence
as Hilary could invent or countenance a theory so open to
the charge of Doketism as the one of which an outline has
just been given; and, accordingly, many attempts have
been made to apologise for his views, and to bring them
into tolerable accord with Catholic orthodoxy. So far as
I can judge, these attempts are by no means successful.
The best thing that could be said in Hilary's behalf, were
it well grounded, is the statement made by Chemnitz, on
the authority of Bonaventura, that William of Paris had
seen a writing of the same Father, in which the doctrine
taught in the treatise on the Trinity concerning Christ's
human nature was retracted.* The apology, however, most
in favour with theologians, both Catholic and Protestant,
is, that Hilary's intention was to deny, not the reality, but
the necessity of our Lord's experience of infirmity; in the
words of Dorner, " to avoid representing the weakness of
'Christ as a physical determination and necessity; and, on
the contrary, to view all His sufferings as deeds, that is, as
ethical."^ But this representation is doubly inaccurate.
In the first place, Hilary does distinctly deny the reality
of the pain supposed to be endured by Christ. What our
Lord suffered on the cross was the impetus of the passion,
not the pain of it. He was, so to speak, as one whose body
is under chloroform, and while unconscious through its
influence, undergoes surgical operations which in ordinary
circumstances would produce pain. What Christ willed,
therefore, was not to endure real pain, which was foreign
to His miraculously conceived body, but simply to sustain
assaults which would have caused pain to any other man.
Hilary, in short, made Christ's whole experience of infirmity
as doketic as Cyril made His growth in knowledge; it was

naturam dolendi corpori intulisse: quia quamvis forma corporis nostri esset in
Domino, non tamen in vitiosae infirmitatis nostrae esset corpora qui non esset m
origine, quod ex conceptu Spiritus sancti Virgo progenuit: quod licet sexus sui
officio genuerit, tamen non terrenae conceptionis suscepit dementis.

1 De diiabus naturis, c. 3, p. 16.

2 Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. p, 413. To the same effect Thomasius,
Christi Person tmd Werk, ii. p. 183. Aquinas, Su/nma, pars iii. q. 15, says:
Non veritatem doloris, sed necessitatem excludere intendit.

Christ the Subject of Teniptatio7i. 243

simply an economic accommodation to the fashion of that
humanity which He had assumed. The painless One freely
subjected Himself to experiences which ordinarily cause
pain, just as, according to Cyril, the omniscient One, out
of respect for the demands of the kenosis, consented to
seem ignorant, and accommodate the manifestation of a
knowledge perfect in itself from the first, to the stages of
His physical growth. But if this comparison be disallowed,
then we cannot do better than fall back on one employed
by Hilary himself to explain his view, viz. between the way
in which Christ bore griefs and pains, and the way in which
He bore sins. We are accustomed to think of Christ as
bearing sin, in the sense of bearing real griefs and pains as
their penalty. But Hilary's doctrine is, that Christ bore
grief (^.y He bore sin. Quoting the prophetic passage begin-
ning with the words, " surely He hath borne our griefs,"
he proceeds to say: "Therefore the opinion of human
judgment is deceived, thinking that this man feels pain
because He suffers. For, while bearing our sins, as having
assumed the body of our sin, He Himself nevertheless sins
not. For He was sent in the similitude of sinful flesh;
bearing, indeed, sins in the flesh, but ours. So likewise He
endures pain for us; not, however, as experiencing the sense
of our pain, because He was found in fashion as a man,
having in Himself the body of pain, but not having the
nature which can feel pain; because though His habit is
that of man, His origin is not of man, being due to a
miraculous conception by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Hence He was esteemed to be stricken with pain, smitten,
and afflicted. For He took the form of a servant, and the
fact of His being a man born of the Virgin gave rise to the
opinion, that in His passion He endured the pain which is
natural to us." ^

' De Trinitate, x. c. 47: Hie peccata nostra port at, et pro nobis dolet: et nos
existimavimtts eitm in doloribtcs esse, et in plaga, et in vexatiotie. Ipse aiitem
vulneratiis est propter iniquitates nostras, et infirmitatns est propter peccata
nostra. Fallitur ergo humanae aestimationis opinio, piitans huiic (hinc ?) dolere
quod patitur. Portans enim peccata nostra, peccati nostri scilicet corpus assumens,
tamen ipse non peccat. Missus namque est in peccati carnis similitudine; portans
quidem in carne peccata, sed nostra. Et pro nobis dolet, non et doloris nostri
dolet sensu: quia et habilu ut homo repertus, habcns in se doloris corpus, sed non

244 The Humiliation of Christ.

Conceding, however, the point as to the reality of Christ's
experience of pain, I remark in the second place, with re-
spect to the apology for Hilary now under consideration,
that it does not suffice to clear that Father from the charge
of doketism to say, that he merely wished to make the
Saviour's endurance of suffering a matter, not of necessity,
but of free will. For there are two senses in which volun-
tariness may be predicated of Christ's sufferings and experi-
ences of infirmity; one which is perfectly compatible with
the ascription to His human nature of the same liability to
sinless infirmity as that under which ordinary men lie; an-
other, which excludes that liability, and makes all Christ's
pains the miraculous effects of the forthputting at His
pleasure of His divine power. To make this distinction
plain, let me quote and comment on a statement of opinion,
on the point in hand, by an orthodox doctor of a later age,
who held what Hilary is supposed to have intended to
teach, and who brought his views to bear against the prev-
alent errors of the Adoptianists. Alcuin, in his treatise
against Felix of Urgellis, refuting the opinion that Christ
was by natural condition a servant, says: " The Catholic
verity confesses that Christ had all the infirmities of the
flesh which He assumed, voluntarily, when He wished: a
voluntary and true hunger when He came hungering to the
fig-tree; a voluntary and true weariness when He sat down,
fatigued with His journey, by the well; a voluntary and
true wound, when He was pierced in the side by the soldier's
spear; a voluntary and true death, when with bowed head
He gave up the ghost upon the cross; a voluntary and true
burial, when Joseph and Nicodemus placed Him, taken
down from the cross, in the sepulchre. All these infirmi-
ties of the flesh, voluntary indeed, yet true, Christ had, be-
cause He took the nature of human flesh, not in phantasy,
but in truth." ' Take now one of these infirmities, say the

habens naturam dolendi, dum et ut hominis habitus est, et origo non liominis est,
nato eo de conceptione Spiritus sancti. Hinc itaque aestimatus est et in doloribus,
et in plaga et in vexatione esse. Formam enim servl accepit: et natus ex virgine
homo opinionem nobis naturalis sibi in passione doloris invexit.

> Alcuini Opera, Adv. Felicem, lib. vi. cap. iv. : Catholica Veritas confitetur
secundum veram substantiam carnis, omnes ejusdem carnis, quas suscepit, infirmi-
tates voluntarias habere Christum, cum voluisset. Voluntariam namque et veram

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 245

weariness by the well, that we may see the two different
senses in which voluntariness may be predicated of it. We
may say that Christ was voluntarily weary, meaning that
He permitted — that is, abstained from using divine power
to prevent — the heat of the sun and the long journey on
foot to have their natural effect on a physical frame, as
liable to be acted on by these causes as that of any other
man. Voluntariness, thus Understood, is perfectly com-
patible with the doctrine that Christ's humanity in physical
constitution was exactly the same as ours. It is a volun-
tariness of this kind, not opposed to, but in harmony with,
a reign of physical law, that Cyril teaches when he says,
with reference to the death of Christ: " Therefore He ap-
peared in our nature, and made His own body subject to
corruption, according to the reasons inherent in nature, in
order that He, being Himself the Life, might implant
therein the good which belonged to Him — that is, life."^
John of Damascus means the same thing when he says that
" our infirmities were in Christ, both according to nature
and above nature. According to nature, because He al-
lowed His flesh to suffer what was proper to it; above
nature, because in the Lord the physical states did not out-
run His will. For in Him nothing compulsory is seen, but
all is voluntary. Voluntarily he hungered, voluntarily He
thirsted, voluntarily He feared, voluntarily He died."'
This, then, is the one sense in which voluntariness may be

famem, cum esuiiens ad ficulneam veniret; voluntariam et veram lassitudinem,
cum fatigatus ab itinere super puteum sederet; voluntarium et verum vulnus, cum
militis lancea percuteretur in latere; voluntariam et veram mortem, cum inclinato
capite spirilum emisisset in cruce; voluntariam et veram sepulturam, cum eum de-
positum de ligno Joseph et Nicodemus ponerent in sepulchro. Has enim carnis
omnes infirmitates voluntarias quidem, sed veras Christus habuit, quia carnis hu-
manae naturam, non in phantasia, sed in veritate suscepit.

' Quod uniis sit Christus, p. 1352: 'AXV r]v ovx '^rspooZ ro dfUiSii tov
Bavarov HaradeiEdOai xpdroi, itXrjv on Sid //oi't/S ri/i IvarOpoojc?}-
deoDS row Muvuyevovi- Tavvyvoi iteqy-qvE xaO' ijudi. Hat i'Siov tnoiy'i-
daro dc^i-ia to vno tpOopdv, xard ye rot)? kvovzai zy qjvdsi Xoyovi,
'iv tneinEp tdriv avroi r/ Z,a>t) l^yeyevvrjrai ydp eh ZooT/i tov Ilarpoi)
iucpvrevoy to Idiov dyaQov avT^, TovTedri zrjv Zgjj'/v.

• De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xx.: 'Aj-IeXei zd q^vdixa r}/.i(2v ndOtf uaTa
tpvdiv, Kai vTtEp q)vdiv r]dav ev rcJ XpidToS. KaTa tpvdiv jliev ydp
kutvElzo EV aurcj, oze itapExoopEt z^ dtxpxi TtaOsiv zd i'dia- vitEp
tpvdiv 6e, ozi ov TtpoyyEiro ev zcp Kvpicp zfji OEXi'/dEooi zd cpvdind-

246 The Humiliation of Christ.

predicated of Christ's infirmities. But we may attach an-
other idea to the word. Reverting to the infirmity of
weariness by the well, we may say that Jesus was volun-
tarily weary, meaning that He brought on a feeling or state
of weariness, which could not otherwise have been pro-
duced, by a deliberate act of will, having some particular
end in view, such as, that He might have an excuse for en-
tering into conversation with the woman of Samaria, by
asking her for a drink of water. A voluntariness of this
sort another opponent of Adoptianism, Paulinus of Aquileia,
seems to have believed in, when, with reference to our
Lord's soul-trouble recorded in the twelfth chapter of John's
Gospel, he represented Christ as troubling Himself, so
taking on Himself the affection of human infirmity, by a
display of power which excluded the disgrace of real fear;
the design of this act of self-troubling, and of the prayer
which accompanied it, being to elicit a voice from heaven
which might make an impression on the surrounding crowd.^
Now it is manifest that voluntariness, taken in this sense,
is not compatible with a reign of law in Christ's body, or
with the reality of His human nature. To represent Christ
as making Himself hungry, or thirsty, or weary, or sorrow-
ful, is to give His whole life on earth a doketic aspect, and
to degrade it into a theatric spectacle got up for effect —
for the sake of example, or of doctrine, or to beget faith in
the mystery of the Incarnation, or for all these together;
a view, indeed, which the author last named does not hesi-
tate plainly to avow.^ And the question with respect to
Hilary is, in which of the two senses are we to understand
him as ascribing to Christ the experience of real, indeed,
yet always voluntary infirmity ? No one who considers

ov^av yap rivayjiadnevov kit'' avzov QsGopEirat, dXXd itdvra ehov-
6ia. &eXojv yap srrsivj/ds, QsXcov sSiipr/ds, OeXoov edsiXiade, QeXoov
aTteOavf.v.

' Paulini Opera, Contra Feliccm Urgelliiamwi, lib. i. cap. xxix.: Proximus
igitur passioni, suscipiens in se humanae infirmitatis affectum turbavit semetipsum
potestatis utique insignibus, non timoris, ut haeretici garriunt, dedecore.

2 Contra Feliccm, lib. i. cap. xxix.: Orabat quasi verus homo pro hominibus,
sed potestatis insigni, non necessitatis dehonestate. Omne enim quod incarnata
Dei Patris sapientia virtusque mirabiliter in locutione, in actione. in situ, in motu.
In sessione, et resurrectione, ac deambulatione egit, aut exemplum, aut doctrina,
aut mysteriura fuit, aut utrumque et hoc et haec, et illud.

Christ the Subject of Temptation, i/^'j

the stress which He lays on the miraculous birth as giving-
to our Lord's humanity a peculiar physical constitution,
can hesitate as to the answer. In the view of this Father,
our Lord's infirmities, if real at all, which is more than
doubtful, were necessarily miraculous: they were not pro-
duced by reasons iaherent in His human nature, but by His
divine will. Whereas, on the true theory, the miracle
would have lain in Christ's not feeling weary as He sat by
the well, after His long journey under a hot sun; on Hilary's
theory, the miracle was that Christ did feel weary, the sun
and the journey being impotent to exhaust His frame, born
of the Virgin, yet divine in origin.

Against the charge of doketism, then, this distinguished
Father of the Western Church cannot be successfully de-
fended; and instead of indulging in desperate attempts at
apologising for his errors, we shall be more profitably
occupied in endeavouring to discover how such a man
could be led to take up so false a position on so vital a sub-
ject. The explanation is indeed not far to seek, being to
be found in a law of controversy whose powerful influence
is abundantly illustrated in the history of theological war-
fare,— that, viz., according to which every controversialist
tends to take up a position as far as possible removed
from that of his opponent, not unfrequently abandoning to
the enemy the open fields of common truth, and shutting
himself up within the narrow citadel of orthodoxy. Hilary
Was the defender of the Nicene faith against its formidable
foes, the Arians. Now one way by which the Arians
assailed the divinity of Christ was, by pointing to His ex-
perience of infirmity. That man Jesus, they argued, how-
ever exalted, cannot be divine, for God is impassible; but
behold, that man suffered fear, sorrow, and pain. To which
Hilary replied in effect: " I grant that God is impassible —
that fear, sorrow, and pain cannot touch Him. But what
of that .'' Neither did Christ suffer any of these things; the
statements in the Gospels which seem to ascribe infirmity
to Him can all be satisfactorily explained." And so he
saved Christ's divinity at the expense of His humanity, and
in giving us a God totus in suis, robbed us of a Brother
totus in nostris.

248 The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

The foregoing discussion of the eccentric views enter-
tained by an ancient Church Father finds its chief use, and
best apology, in being a help towards realizing the impor-
tance of the commonplace category, " the sinless infirmi-
ties," in connection with Christ's experience of temptation.
For every one sees at a glance what a different complexion
is given to that experience, if it still deserve the name, on
the assumption that tlilary's theory is true. No real fear
of death, giving rise to earnest desire to escape it, if
possible, only an acted fear for our sakes, to teach us not
to fear in a similar situation; no impassioned prayer, with
strong crying and tears, for His own deliverance, but only
a compliance with the rule of prayer, for an example to
Christians placed in straits; no real intense mental struggle
or agony, as of one obliged to choose between two dread
alternatives, but only the appearance of one, assumed and
exhibited for the benefit of spectators; no veritable exhaus-
tion, calling for angelic succour, but only a permitting of
Himself to be comforted on the part of a strong One, who
had no need of celestial help, that martyrs and confessors
might be nerved' to endurance by the assurance of season-
able aid; the bloody sweat, if real, no result of mortal weak-
ness, but miraculously produced for the sake of such as
should be called to suffer martyrdom, whether by con-
secrating the earth, on which it dropped, to be their
burying-place, or by inspiring them with the hope of a
better resurrection.^ On such a theory there is no life-

' The above may seem overdrawn, but it is in truth little more than a free par-
aphrase of what Paulinus says in his work, Contra Feliccm, lib. iii. c. v., in defence
of the voluntariness (in the illegitimate sense) of Christ's passion. " Quod autem,"
he remarks, " tristatur, moeret, pavet, et taedet, et humanae apertius demonstraUir
Veritas carnis, et noslrae per id praestatur infirmitatis quantocius fortitudo. Non
enim infirmari coacte potuit inviolabilis virtus, nisi in quantum praestabilius volun-
taria potentate illi pro nobis placuit infirmari." Then in reference to prayer this
doctrine is applied thus: "Nam et orationis regulam tempore passionis ideo taliter
informare voluit ut membra sua . . . inter angustias positi, et in oratione strenui,
et in Dei Voluntate per subjectionem Concordes, et fortes robore in agone cerla-
niinis permanerent." Concerning the celestial succour it is said: "Hinc est quod
idem Redemptor noster, qui nuUo modo alieno indigebat auxilio, in ipso, ut ita
.oquar, traditionis momento factus in agonia dum prolixius oraret, angelos se pro
nostra consolatione permisit confortare, nulla prorsus exigente causa necessitatis,
sed ul hoc exemplo," etc. etc. On the subject of the bloody sweat, Faulinus in

Christ the Subject of Te7nptation. 249

experience of temptation, but only a dramatic spectacle, — a
God wearing a mask, and playing the part of a tempted
man. On the other hand, grant the reality of infirmity,
and all the events pass from the region of iictitious repre-
sentation into the region of genuine human experience;
Christ becomes the tempted man, tempted in some respects
at least as we are, tempted both positively and negatively,
positively, by the attractions of that which is agreeable to
sense, as when the tempter in the wilderness set before
Him the pleasant way of a worldly Messiahship; negatively,
by the repulsions of pain impending or in course of being
endured, as when Peter thoughtlessly performed Satan's
part, and said, " Save Thyself;" or when the near prospect
of the passion awoke in His own soul the wish, " Would
that this cup might pass ! "

" Tempted in some respects at least," I have said. But
the Scripture says, " tempted in all respects as we are.
without sin." The question therefore arises: Does the
category of sinless infirmities afford a basis for a catholic
experience of temptation; and if not, is there some other
condition of the possibility of temptation to be taken into
account, which has hitherto been overlooked .■' Now there
have not been wanting men, at various periods in the
Church's history, who have answered the former part of
this question in the negative, and have deemed it necessary,
in order to give fulness to Christ's experience as the
tempted, to ascribe to Him not merely sinless physical or
psychical infirmity, but participation in a morally vitiated
human nature, without prejudice to His actual sinlessness.
This view seems to have been first distinctly enunciated at
the close of the eighth century by the Adoptianists, and
particularly by Felix of Urgellis. It is not difficult to see
how the advocates of the Adoptian theory of Christ's person
might be led into such a line of thought. Their great

dulges in vapid rhetoric to which I am unable to attach any distinct meaning.
His words are: "Unde et pro sudoris rore de corpore unici ejusdemque nostri
consolatoris guttas sanguinis, quod certum est humanae omnino non esse naturae
sudare, non frustratorie ab evangelista refertur in terram usque distillasse: quatenus
per terram, in quam defiuxerat, terrena beatorum martyrum depromeret membra,
et purpureae guttulae punicum distillantis rorem roseo Christi sanguine eadeqi
sanctorum martyrum purpurata depingeret membra."

25o The Hin:2i!iatio7i of Christ.

concern was to vindicate the reality and completeness of
our Lord's humanity, which appeared to them to be over-
looked or thrown into the background, in the prevalent form
of Christological doctrine; an impression certainly not
without foundation, if their orthodox opponents, Alcuin and
Paulinus, may be taken as fair samples of contemporary
opinion on such subjects. Felix and others like-minded
said: Jesus Christ is a man, our Brother. As a man. He is
the Son of God by adoption, even as we Christians are; and
He is God by name (nuncupative), in virtue of His connec-
tion with the second person of the Trinity, who in Him
became incarnate. Having taken up this fundamental
position, they of course laid hold of everything in the
Scripture bearing on the Jiomoiisia of Christ's humanity with
ours as an argument in favour of their theory. They
emphasized the facts that Christ was the subject of pre-
destination and election, and the recipient of grace; they
took in earnest all that is said of Christ employing the pres-
ence of infirmity or sinless imperfection. His ignorance,
His refusal of the title " good " in the absolute sense. His
tears. His agony, His prayers, not merely for others, but
bond fide for Himself They did this; and they did more:
after the fashion of controversialists, they exaggerated some
Scripture statements and misinterpreted others, in their
eagerness to fortify their position; and so with much that
was true and that needed to be said, they mingled not a
little that was false and fitted to create a wholesale prejudice
against everything advanced by them in support of their
caus.e. They held that Christ was not only a servant, but
a servant by natural condition and necessity, born into a
servile state of a servile mother;' that He was baptized
because He needed baptism, and in His baptism underwent
regeneration;^ that by His birth He was partaker of the

1 Servus conditionalis, ex ancilla natus. Vid. Alcuin, Adv. Feiicem, lib. iii. c.
lii., lib. iv. c, ix. Alcuiiv quotes Felix, asking: Quid potuit de ancilla nasci, ni.-i
servus? Vid. lib. vi. c. ii.

« Alcuin, Adv. Fellcem, lib. ii. c. xvi. : Has geminas generationes: primam vide
licet quae secundum carnem est; secundani vero spiritalem, quae per adoptionem
fit; idem Redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus in semetipso continet:
primam videlicet, quam suscepit ex Viri^ine nascendo: secundam vero quam initi-
avit in lavacro a mortuis resurgendo. Felix draws a parallel between Christ and

Christ the Stibject of Temptation, 25 1

old man,' belonged to the mass of perdition, was subject to
the law of sin, and therefore to the curse of sin — death.
Joshua, clothed with filthy garments, having Satan at his
right hand to resist him, and plucked by Jehovah as a brand
from the burning, was Jesus sordid with the sinful flesh He
had assumed, clad in the tattered and torn garments of the
human race, until the shuttle of the cross wove for Him a
tunic of innocence, wearing a body half-burned by the
transgression of His first parents and by the flame of their
crimes, which, however, He was able by His virtue to rescue
from being utterly consumed in the fire of hell."

Views similar to these have been propounded in the
present century both in Germany and in England; in the
former country by Gottfried Menken of Bremen, in the
latter by the better known Edward Irving. Menken seems
to have been influenced both by theological bias, and by a
practical religious interest in the doctrine of our Lord's
humanity. In a homily on the text: " Who by the eternal
Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,"^ wherein he
states his views on the question at issue, he makes the
prefatory observation that theologians had been so much
occupied in defending Christ's divinity against assailants,
that Christians had not sufficiently contemplated Him as
the Son of Man; and hence the testimonies of the Scriptures

Christians, and makes Him like them partake of two generations, one natural, the
other spiritual begun in His baptism, completed in His resurrection.

' Alcuin, Adv. Elipandiim, lib. i. c. xvi. Alcuin sums up the doctrine of Eli-
pandus thus: Asserens Christum el veterem hominem esse, et nuncupativum Deum,
et adoptivum filium, et secunda indiguisse regeneratione et alia plurima ecclesias-
ticae doctrinae inconvenientia.

* Alcuin, Adv. Felicem, lib. vii. c, viii. : Et Jesus erat indutus vestimentis sor-
didis, utique ex transgressione de came peccati sordidus, quam induere dignatus
est: unde et pannis iuvolutus, et scissuras humani generis, dum in se ilia suscepit,
inspicitur; donee radio crucis, innocentiae tunica texeretur. Nonne inquit, hie titio
extractiis ab igne est? Titio extractus ab igne semiustula-^us, non percombustus
esse 03tenditur. Corpus enim illud humani generis, quod ex protoplastorum trans-
gressione et criminum flamma fuerat adustum, hoc induit Dominus, et quasi titi-
onem semiustulatum a gehennae incendio liberavit. Alcuin represents Felix as
fathering this interpretation on Jerome ; but he calls in question the accuracy of
the statement.

3 Homilien iXber das nettnte und zehnte Capitel des Brief es an die Hebriier nebst
einem Anhang etlicher Homilien ubtr Stellen des zwOlften Capitels, Bremen 1831.
The homily referred to in the text is the sixth.

2 52 The Humiliation of Christ.

to the true and full humanity of the Son of God had not
been duly considered, and were among the things least
known and understood. By way of doing justice to
the neglected doctrine, he maintains that Christ, when
He came into the world, took not human nature as it came
from the hand of God before the fall, before it became sin-
ful and mortal in Adam through his disobedience. He
took a mortal body, a body of flesh which might be called
a body of sin: a body, at least, in which sin, suffering, and
death were possible, and whose natural inevitable doom it
was to die. Had He not assumed such a body, He would
not have been a real member of the human race, a true
Adamite. For sinfulness of nature and mortality belong,
of necessity, to the essence of natural earthly humanity. A
being free from the taint of original sin, and immortal, does
not belong to that humanity, is no true full son of Adam
and son of man; and of him can never be said that he was
made in all things like his brethren the Adamites, the sin-
ful mortal sons of Adam.^ Therefore it is explicitly as-
serted by this author, that Christ, the sinless One, in His
humanity partook not merely of the mortality, but of the
sinfulness of human nature. Those who are familiar with
the concatenations of thought characteristic of this school,
will know beforehand what sort of doctrine to expect from
such a quarter, on the subject of Christ's redeeming work.
Christ's vocation as Redeemer was to make the whole
lump of fallen humanity holy, by sanctifying the portion
thereof He had assumed into connection with Himself,

' Sundlichkeit imd Sterblichkeit gehOren nothwendig zu dem Wesen der nattlr-
lichen irdischen Menschheit, zu dem Eigenthtinilichen der Adamsfamilie. Ein
UnsUndlicher, und ein Unsterblicher gehOit der natUrlichen irdischen Menschheit
nicht an; ein Unsiindlicher und Unsterblicher ist kein naturlicher und wahrer
Adamide, kein wahrhaftiger und vulliger Adams- und Menschensohn. Von einem
Unsundlichen und Unsterblichen kann auch nimmer mit VVahrheit gesagt werden,
er sei den Adamiden, den siindlichen und sterblichen Adamskindern als seinem
Brtidern IN Allem gleich geworden, theilhafiig ihres Fleisches und Blules. —
Ibid. p. 103. Unsundlichkeit in this extract evidently signifies freedom from cor-
ruption of nature or original sin, which, according to Ullmann, Die Simdlosigkeit
yesu, p. 25, is the strict meaningof the word, as distinct from Simdlosigkeit, which
signifies freedom from actual sins. Menken ascribes to Christ Simdlosigkeit, but
not Unsundtichkeit. He says, ibid. p. 105 : Er hat die SUndlichkeit der mensch-
lichen Natur, und das est noch keine wirklichke Sunde.

Oirist the Subject of Temptation. 253

which He did partly by living in His fallen flesh a perfectly
holy life, partly by dying on the cross, as a sin-offering,
offering up Himself without spot to God, and just on that
account being a sin-offering; for His spotlessness meant
that sin had been destroyed, and it was the peculiarity of
the sin-offering, that in it the victim was totally consumed.
Only by this theory, it is held, is justice done to Scripture
statements, such as, " He hath made Him to be sin for
us;" and, " God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
as a sin-offering, and destroyed sin in the flesh." Some-
thing more is meant by such expressions than the shallow,
pitiful idea that Christ died for men; an idea hardly worth
the trouble of understanding it: unworthy of the long pre-
paration which had been made for Christ's coming, dis-
honouring to mankind, as if, forsooth, Jesus of Nazareth
were the only one sufficiently inspired by the heroism of
love to be willing to lay down His life for His brethren;
not to say dishonouring to God, by placing the acceptable
element of Christ's sacrifice in the mere fact of death. No,
something far deeper, far more thorough, is signified by
these Scripture oracles; even that Christ was made sin by
taking sinful flesh; that He offered Himself without spot,
by fighting a successful battle with sin; that He became
the atoning sin-offering of the world, because in His own
person He offered up and annihilated the sinfulness of
human nature, made this nature in His person sinless,
exhibited it in His person sinless, to God, angels, and
devils, even as, when He re-entered heaven, He exhibited
it immortal.*

These opinions, promulgated from a German pulpit some
fifty years ago, so closely resemble those uttered about the
same time in the ears of a London audience by an eloquent

1 Er ist also zur Stinde gemacht, da er den schmahlichen Leib des Fleisches
anzog, da er die verachtetste aller Geistergestalten, die Gestalt des siindiichen
Fleisches, annahm. Er hat sich selbst geopfert, da er durch fortgesetzte Ueber-
•windung und Aufopferung diese Gestalt in sich vernichtete. Er ist das versOhn-
ende Stindopfer der Welt geworden, da er in seiner Person die Siindlichkeit der
Menschennalur aufopferle und vernichtete, diese Natur in seiner Person unsundlich
machte, die sundliche Menschennatur in seiner Person Gott und Engeln und Teu-
feln unstindlich dastellte, wie er sie hernach, als er in die Himmel einging, auch
unsterblich dargestellet hat. — Ibid. p. 105.

254 ^^ Humiliatio7i of Christ.

but erratic Scotch preacher, that further exposition of the
theory held in common by both is quite unnecessary. Irv-
ing differs from Menken only by greater elaboration and
fuller detail, by the rhetorical extravagance of many of his
statements, and by the confident assertion of his orthodoxy,
in utter ignorance of the historical affinities of his system,
which the better informed German theologian knew to be a
comparative, though, as he deemed, justifiable novelty. The
British divine seems to have been influenced, not less than
the Continental one, by theological bias. Besides intense and
most praiseworthy zeal in behalf of the reality of our Lord's
humanity, there was at work in Irving's mind, as his trea-
tise on the Incarnation plainly shows, a feeling of deep dis-
satisfaction with the current doctrine of atonement, which
he bitterly and contemptuously nicknamed the " bargain
and barter hypothesis."^ Accordingly he too, like Men-
ken, adopted, and with far more vehemence advocated,
what may be called the theory of REDEMPTION BY SAM-
PLE;^ that is to say, that Christ took sinful human nature
into connection with His own person; battled heroically
through life with the temptations springing out of that
"fragment of the perilous stuff" He had assumed, that
flesh of His wherein " all infirmities, sin, and guilt of all
flesh was gathered into one" — in which all "sins, infirmi-
ties, and diseases" "nestled;" suffered death on the cross
as the doom due to Him as in His human nature a " fall-
en," though personally a sinless man; yea, suffered the
extremity of that divine wrath to which sinful flesh and
blood is obnoxious; and after death descended in His soul
into hell, there to endure a most fearful conflict; and so
having maintained His personal sinlessness, and endured
to the uttermost the penalty due to His sinful human
nature, accomplished the reconciliation or atonement of

' The Doctrine of the Incarnation Opened, vol. v. of Collected Writings, p. 146.

2 This theory, or hints of it, can be found in the writings of the early Fathers;
vid. Lecture ii. of this course. But the theory in the hands of the Fathers did
not mean that Christ took a portion of sinful humanity and made it holy, and
through it sanctified the whole lump; but only that He took a portion of humanity
in a sinless state, and kept it sinless through a life of temptation, and presented it
to His Father as the first-fruits of a renewed humanity. Vid. for a fuller exposition
of this theory, next Lecture.

Christ tue Subject of Temptation. 255

God and man in His own person; what was done in one
portion, in the sample, being "virtually accomplished in
the whole."

Addressing ourselves now to the question, what is the
worth of this theory of our Lord's humanity, held by the
Adoptianists in the eighth century, and revived by Menken
and Irving in the nineteenth, one remark occurs at the out-
set, viz., that the theory wears on its face as m-uch the look
of an extreme, as the very different one propounded by
Hilary. Prima facie, one is disposed to pronounce, that if
Hilary made too much of the miraculous conception, the
present theory errs as far in the opposite direction, of mak-
ing too little of it. One is at a loss to see why, under this
theory, Jesus should not have descended from Adam by
ordinary generation, as He could not have been made more
of a partaker in the sinfulness of the human nature by that
method of birth than He actually was: not to mention that
even if the opposite were true, that ought not, in the the-
ory, to be an objection to, but rather a recommendation of,
the method of ordinary generation, inasmuch as the very
raison d'etre of the theory is to make Christ in His human-
ity in all things like His brethren. It is true, indeed, that
Irving speaks of the manner of Christ's conception as hav-
ing the effect of taking away original sin.^ But this is sim-
ply a quibble; for he explains his meaning by remarking
that Christ was not a human person, never had personal
subsistence as a mere man. Beyond a doubt, the theory
requires that original sin should be ascribed to Christ; for
original sin is a vice of fallen human nature; and the doc-
trine that our Lord's human nature was fallen, means, if it
means anything, that it was tainted with original sin.
And in this taint not merely the body but the soul of Jesus
must be held to have participated; for whatever theory may
be held as to the origin of souls, whether the traducian or
the creatian, it is certain that the soul, in becoming wedded
to the body, shares its mortal state. That Irving was aware
of what the consequence of his theory required at this point,
is manifest from his using the following argument against the
opinion that Christ's soul was pre-existent: "Moreover,

' Incarnation Opened, p. 159.

2 56 The Humiliation of Christ.

then, creation hath not fallen wholly, for this pre-existent
soul hath never found a fall; and, being united with the
body of Christ, is still the creature in the unfallen state;
and so the better half of the man Christ is unfallen, and
and the other half of Him is fallen. Strange conjunction,
and heterogeneous mixture!"^ So that the influence of
the Holy Ghost did not avail to keep even the soul of Jesus
untainted by the fall, not to speak of His body !

Another thing very forcibly strikes the mind of one who
has perused the literature of this theory, viz., the rhetor-
ical inexactitude, and absence of carefully discriminated
thought, characteristic of its advocates.- This feature is
particularly noticeable in Irving. For example, he asserts,
over and over again, that Christ's flesh was mortal and
corruptible, without ever asking or deliberately considering
whether these terms might not bear more than one mean-
ing, but habitually using them as an equivalent for " fallen."
And yet he himself uses at least one of the two words in
two distinct senses. In many places he employs the word
" mortal " in accordance with the requirement of his theory,
as meaning, doomed of necessity to endure death, the curse
of sin. Yet in one place he speaks of death, in relation to
Christ, as a thing " which He was capable of as being in
the fallen state, though not obliged to it as perfectly
holy."^ Mortal, i. e., signifies capable of dying, and this
is held to be a distinctive attribute of the fallen state !
Another example of inexact thinking may be found in the
manner in which Irving slumps together sin, guilt, disease,
infirmity.* Like Hilary, he makes no distinction between
sinless infirmities and vitia; extremes meeting here, only
to opposite intents, the ancient Father denying to Christ
all share in infirmity to save Him from vitium, the modern
orator ascribing to Him a share in the vice of our nature,

. ' Incarnation Opened, p. 121.

2 Ullmann, Die Si'tndlosigkeit Jesu, p. 1 19, characterizes the advocates of this
theory as tneist sclnvarmerische Leitte (enthusiasts). He refers to several authors
whose works I have not seen, viz., Dippel, Eschrich, Fend, and Peter Poiret, Ot
Menken he does not speak, but the name of Irving is alluded to,

3 Incarnation Opened, p. 188.

* Ibid. pp. 174, 320: " All infirmity, sin, and guilt gathered into one." "All
sins, infirmities, and diseases nestled in it."

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 2 5/

because He unquestionably partook of our infirmities. Yet
another instance of rhetorical inaccuracy, where carefully
discriminated thought was specially called for, is afforded
in the loose way in which Irving handles the subject of
temptation. He makes no attempt to ascertain the con-
ditions under which, and the extent to which, temptation
is possible to a holy being living a human life in this world
in a sentient but sinless nature; but seems to assume that
temptation can be a reality only when it proceeds, as it
often does in us, from evil lusts originating in a vice of dis-
position. Thus he says in one place: " I believe it to be
necessary unto salvation that a man should believe that
Christ's soul was so held in possession by the Holy Ghost,
and so supported by the divine nature, as that it never
assented unto an evil suggestion, and never originated an
evil suggestion; while, upon the other hand. His flesh was
of that mortal and corruptible kind which is liable to all
forms of evil suggestion and temptation, through its par-
ticipation in a fallen nature and a fallen world; and that
thus, though at all points assailable through His flesh. He
was in all respects holy; seeing wickedness consisteth not
in being tempted, but in yielding to the temptation. This,
I say, I consider to be an article of faith necessary to salva-
tion; and the opposite of it, which holdeth that His flesh
was unfallen, and not liable to all temptation by sin, nor
conscious to it, I hold to be a virtual denial of His hu-
manity." ^ The assumption here is, that unfallen flesh is
not liable to temptation; yet such liability is held to be
essential to the truth of humanity, whence it follows that
Adam was either not a veritable man before the fall, or
that, unfallen though he was, he was nevertheless liable to
all temptation by sin. In another place our author trium-
phantly asks: " Doth any one doubt that there was in the
flesh of Christ a repugnancy to suffer, a liability to be
tempted in all things as we are tempted, and which was
only prevented from falling before temptation by the faith
of His Father's promises, and by the upholding of the Holy
Spirit ? Then I ask that man. What is Christ i* — a man }
No; for even unfallen manhood was disposed to fall into
' Incarnation Opened, p. 126.

258 The Humiliation of Christ.

sin. A fallen man ? No; for fallen manhood doth nothing
but sin. A creature ? No; for defectibility is the very
thing- which distinguisheth creature from Creator." ^ Here
we observe the confusion, before noticed, of sinless infirmity
with a morally vitiated condition, a repugnancy to suffer
being cited as evidence that Christ's human nature was
fallen; and the consequent neglect to inquire how far sin-
less infirmity goes in accounting for "the liability to be
tempted in all things as we are," which it is coolly assumed
all opponents of the theory advocated must in consistency
deny.

From the foregoing remarks it is manifest that there are
certain questions bearing on the relation of our Lord's hu-
manity to the fall, which require much more careful hand-
ling than they have received from the parties just adverted
to, in order to an intelligent and sound decision of the im-
portant issue which their speculations raised. These
questions may be stated in this way. Assuming that the
human nature of Christ was unfallen, untainted by the
corruption which is commonly called original sin, how does
it stand related to the things which we are accustomed to
regard as the effects and penalty of sin, such as disease and
death } and further, on the same assumption, what limita-
tions result, in Christ's experience of temptation ? — the
topic in which we are at present specially interested.

As to the former of these two questions, it is by no means
an easy one to answer properly, as the history of its treat-
ment shows. It formed one of the subjects of controversy
between the different sects of the Monophysites in the sixth
century; one party, the followers of Severus, Monophysite
Bishop of Antioch, named Theodosians, and on account of
their tenets nicknamed by their opponents PJitJiartolatrists,
maintaining that Christ's body before the resurrection was
mortal and corruptible; another party, the followers of
Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, named Gajanites, and by
their opponents nicknamed Apthartodoketists, maintaining,
on the contrary, that Christ's body before, as after the
resurrection, was in itself incorruptible and immortal, endur-
ing hunger, pain, death, only by an act of will and by way
> Incarnation Opened, p. 170.

Christ the Sttbject of Temptation. 269

of economy, all sufferings and wants being foreign to His
human nature, as indeed they were to man before the fall.
The Emperor Justinian espoused the cause of the latter
party, and endeavoured to get their view recognised by the
Church as orthodox; but in this he failed, and the disputed
question was allowed to remain undecided, the feeling
probably being, that there was something to be said for
both sides. Coming down to our own times, we find that
something is said on both sides, by different men at one in
regard to our fundamental assumption, and even by the
same men. Thus, for example, an orthodox German com-
mentator on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Riehm, in reference
to the statement that Christ took flesh and blood in the
same manner as we possess it, remarks: " It would be quite
contrary to the sense of the writer to say that Christ took
human nature as it was before the fall, in its original power
and completeness. The children are such as need to be
sanctified, and their flesh and blood, in which Christ took
part likewise, is the human corporeal nature as weakened
through the curse of sin, receptive to all outward impres-
sions tending to tempt or to cause pain, and liable to death."'
Yet this same writer, expounding the doctrine laid down in
the fourth chapter of the Epistle, concerning Christ's ex-
perience of temptation, with express reference to Menken's
views, recognises in the qualifying clause, x'^P^'^ duapria'i,
a double limit to that experience, and understands it as not
only excluding a sinful issue in connection with ail temp-
tations whatsoever, but as exempting from a certain class
of temptations, those, viz., whose source is iS ia kniBv/xiat
there being in Christ no inborn sinful desire, no natural in-
clination to sin; His human nature, on the contrary, being
perfectly free from sinful bias and evil lust.^ Another
better known German theologian, Ebrard, on the other
hand, teaches that the status htiinilis, assumed by Christ
in becoming man, consisted in a return to the condition of
Adam before the fall; and yet with this doctrine in full
view, he also maintains that Christ assumed humanity as it

' Der Lehrbegriff des Hcbriierhriefes dargestellt, ujid mit verwandien Lehrbe-
griffenverglichen, 1 868; vid. p. 314.
* Ibid. p. 322.

26o The Humiliation of Christ,

stood under the consequences of sin, that beings, in his
opinion, the very import of the phrase, in the Epistle to
the PhiHppians, t-iopcprfv SovXav Xafiwr} Here we have not
only two doctors agreed on the main point differing from
each other, but one of them, in appearance at least, contra-
dicting himself.

This perplexing diversity, or seeming oscillation of opin-
ion, is accounted for partly by the fact that the fallen and
the unfallen states, physically considered, are not in all re-
spects diverse, and partly by variation of the point of view
from which the Incarnation and its design are regarded.
As to the former, the state of Adam unfallen was one inter-
mediate between inevitable subjection to death and abso-
lute immunity from death. His body was mortal, in the
sense in which every material organism must be mortal,
that is not 3/et glorified or spiritualized, but dependent on
outward nature, and standing in need of food, drink, sleep,
and breath. Had he stood in his integrity, there is reason
to believe that he would have passed from a corruptible to
an incorruptible state, without tasting of death. On the
other hand, when he fell, what had before been but a pos-
sibility was converted into a doom: he was left to the oper-
ation of natural laws which would not fail in due time to
bring about decay and dissolution, if disease did not inter-
vene to produce the result sooner. Mortal before, in the
sense of possessing a body de facto capable of dying, and
physically liable to the chance of death; he was mortal now,
in the sense that he was, for his sin, deprived of the privi-
lege of being raised above that capacity or liability, and
doomed to remain on the level at which his trial found
him, till the actual experience of death overtook him.
The liability was common to the two states; the doom to
remain under it, instead of rising above it, was a part of the
penalty of transgression. Now the Son of God, in becom-
ing man, certainly took what was common to both states.
He took a body, mortal in the sense of being physically
capable of and liable to death; a body which could be de-

' Ckristluke Doginatik, ii. p. 220: compare ii. p. 34, where the nopqjj] dovXov
is defined as "die der unter den Folgen der Stinde stehenden Menschheit." For
the reconciliation of these two propositions, see ii. pp. 215-224.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 261

prived of vitality by hunger, thirst, exposure to cold, by a
fall from a precipice or by the thrust of a spear, and which,
however sound in constitution and all vital organs, was not
proof against evil influences in its environment, such as
those of an unwholesome atmosphere tainted and poisoned
by disease, putrefaction, malaria. Emisit animani, non ami-
sit, said one of the ancient Fathers; and a modern writer,
quoting the remark, says of Christ, that " He could, by an
exercise of divine power, die without doing and without
knowing sin." ^ Such language would convey a false im-
pression were it understood to mean, that it was necessary
that Christ should put forth divine power in order to bring
about miraculously a state of death, which, otherwise, the
pain of the cross and the spear-wound had been impotent
to produce. Christ did doubtless die freely, not by neces-
sity; but His freedom showed itself in His allowing Him-
self to fall into the hands of His enemies, and in permitting
the physical causes of death to work their natural effect.
It was not a miracle that the crucified and pierced One
died; the miracle would have been had He lived in spite
of nails and spear. Thus understood, mortality may pro-
perly be reckoned as belonging to the truth of Christ's
humanity, as it is by the Reformed theologian Sadeel, when
he says, " The Word assumed human nature, mortal, pati-
ble, and sin excepted, like us." "^

These observations prepare us for understanding the pe-
culiar position taken up by Ebrard, in reference to the status
Jiumilis in which Christ placed Himself by becoming man.
On the one hand, he holds that that state, inasmuch as it
involved merely the possibility of death, was a return to
the state of Adam before the fall. The unfallen state he
describes as consisting in these particulars: Moral integrity,
or the power of not sinning, the posse non pcccare; do-
minion over the creation; perfect physical health in a body j
not bearing the seeds of death in itself; yet a body for
which, by reason of its constitution, death was a possi-
bility convertible into a certainty in case of sin. The state

' Dods, On the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, pp. 99, 165.
2 De veritate humanae naturae Christi, distinctio vi. : Ergo verbum assumpsit
bumanam naturam inortalem, patibilem, et nobis, excepto peccato, consimilem.

262 The Humiliation of Christ.

assumed by Christ he holds to have been exactly similar to
this, embracing- moral integrity, that is, not the impossi-
bility of sinning, but the power not to sin: dominion over
the creation manifested in His miracles; a physical organ-
ism free from the seeds of death, perfectly healthy, and so
harmonizing with the morally healthy soul, yet capable of
being injured by unwholesome natural influences, and of
undergoing death by mechanical violence, not to say by
disease in case of abnormal moral development. But, on
the other hand. He holds that the status Junnilis, just be-
cause it involved even the possibility of death, in reality
was the state of human nature as under the consequences
of sin. For had there been no fall, had man stood his
moral trial, the physical condition suited to a state of pro-
bation, that, viz., which involved the possibility of death,
would have given place to a state involving absolute im-
munity from death; and the Incarnation (for even in that
case there would have been an Incarnation, according to
our author) would have consisted in the assumption of hu-
manity in a glorified form, a status Jiumilis being wholly
excluded.^

That this ingenious theory does go a certain length in
the solution of a difficult problem cannot be denied; but it
is open to question whether it goes far enough in the di-
rection of placing our Lord's humanity under the physical
consequences of the curse. Ebrard's judgment is liable to
suspicion, because his eye is not single, his aim being to
construct a theory of the Incarnation, which, while not

I Christ liche Dogynatik, ii. p. 221, On the two senses in which the term "mor-
tal " may be used, see p. 222, note 2; and on the respects in which Christ's body
was and was not liable to disease, see note 3. p. 223. Ebrard alludes to the med-
ical distinction between health deni Breitetigrade nach, and health dern HShen-
grade nach, and says that one is healthy, in the former sense, who bears in himself
no disposition to disease; and in the latter sense, whose organs, whatever their
disposition to disease may be, are de facto for the time in a healthy working con-
dition. Of one healthy in the former sense, he remarks that it is possible for him
to be unhealthy in the second sense (the inverse case being equally true). Though
perfectly sound in constitution, he may be injured in his vitals by cold, wound-
ing, or poison, or even in the course of physical development. The former sort
of health he ascribes to Christ, that is, perfect soundness of constitution, but still
not such as to exclude diseases arising from various causes, such as diseases of de-
velopment in childhood.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 263

losing sight of the reason assigned in Scripture for that
event, the redemption of sinners, shall at the same time
satisfy the requirements of a wider plan, that, viz., of pro-
viding a crown for creation and a centre for humanity in a
Pleromatic Man, endowed with all human gifts, and pos-
sessing divine attributes in the form adapted to the hu-
man mode of existence.^ Is there any reason to believe
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Pleromatic Man specula-
tive theologians make Him out to be ? In physical re-
spects, for example; having a body the perfect model of
human form, absolutely sound in constitution, happily
blending together all temperaments,^ so that to the second
Adam may be applied the language in which poetry has
described the first:

" In native worth and honour clad,
With beauty, courage, strength adorned,
Erect, with front serene,
He stands a man, the Lord, and King of nature all."

Do we not lose in reality what we gain in ideality by
this theory ? Is not the particular interest of fallen hu-
manity somewhat sacrificed thereby to the supposed uni-
versal interest of creation ? For what sorrow-laden men
need is not an Apollo, the aesthetically perfect embodi-
ment of manly beauty, but a Christ in whom they can con-
fidently recognise a veritable Brother; and for this purpose
a body like a broken earthen vessel, and a vision marred
more than any man, may be better qualifications than the
most classic beauty of face and form that ever Greek sculp-
tor hewed out of marble. The wisest man of Greece rep-
resented Eros, son of Poros and Penia, as far from being
tender, sleek, and beautiful as many supposed; but lean,
ill-favoured, shoeless, and houseless, a poor penniless wan-
derer sleeping on the bare ground in the street, or on the
wayside.' The striking picture was an unconscious pro-
phecy of incarnate Love, a remarkable divination of what

' See Appendix, Note D, Lecture iv. 2 gee Appendix. Note A.

s Plato: STNinO^lON H UEPI EPflTO^ (Sokrates loquitur) are ovv
Hopov xai Ilsv/cxi vioi cov u"EpGo5, tv roiavr^ ^I'XV T<ocQ£<ii^t]H.E- TtpcS-
rov usy itivrji ccel Idri, uai noXXov Set dnaXoS tb xai xaXdi, oiov oi

264 The Humiliation of Christ.

it became such Love to be and look like, even a man of
sorrow, in all things like unto His brethren, a participant
in, that He might be a succourer to them under, all their
infirmities. And even such was Jesus Christ. That He
actually experienced disease is nowhere said; that He
could not experience it we have no right to affirm.^ The
just view seems to be that expressed by Henry Alting, who
ascribes to Christ the infirmities and defects, not of this or
that individual, such as leprosy or blindness, but those of
man's whole nature springing from the corruption of the
same through sin.^

Passing now to the other question, vii., how far does the
assumption that our Lord's human nature was entirely free
^from sinful bias limit His experience of temptation ? it must
certainly be admitted, as Riehm has pointed out, that one
source of temptation is thereby cut off, — that, viz., indicated
by the expression vito r^j iSiod kTtiBvuiai, occurring in the
Epistle of James. Christ was not and could not be tempted,
in the sense of being " drawn away of His own lust, and en-
ticed." His temptations were x'^pi'^ duapticxi, "without sin,"
not only in their result, but in their origin. But from this
fact it cannot justly be inferred that Christ's experience of
temptation must have been both narrow in range and slight
in degree. For, in the first place, the same temptations
may arise from various causes, and therefore the absence
of a particular cause in any given case does not necessarily
imply exemption from the temptation. Both the coward
and the brave man may be tempted to shrink from the
fight; the one, by effeminacy of spirit and an ignoble love
of life; the other, by an involuntary sensitiveness of nature,
or by a generous concern for his family. One man may be
tempted by angry passion or by greed to take a neighbour's

TfoWoi oiovrai, aWd duXrjpdi, xai avxurjpoi, uai d.yvTt6Si]roi, x'xi
doiHoi' x'xuociTtETT'/i del wv, uai ddtpootoi kni BvpaiZy nal kv 68oli
vTCaiOpioii Hoi/^tcousyoi.

' See note, p. 262, for Ebrard's view on this point.

* Loci communes, pars i. p. 145: Infirmitates et defectus, non hujus vel illius
Jndividui, ut lepra (Matt. viii. 2), caecitas (John ix. i) sed totiiis naturae, ex ejus-
dem per peccatum corraptione suscepli. As examples of infirmity, Allin'T mentions
tristitia, dolor, tlmor, ira, in the mind; in the body, lassitudo ex itinere, sudor,
lachrymae.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 265

life; another man may be tempted by the very intensity of
his love to slay his own son, believing it to be his duty in
this way to show that he loves God more than any created
g-ood. To ascertain this very thing- was the object of
Abraham's temptation, if we may infer the design from the
declared result, which is stated in these terms: " Now I
know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld
thy son, thine only son, from me." Without calling in
question the reality of an objective command, it is not
difficult to conceive that the command addressed itself to,
and found a fulcrum in, an intense desire in Abraham's own
heart to be himself satisfied on the same point. Of two
possible careers, men may be tempted to choose that one
which is not their true vocation, from very opposite motives.
One man may be misled by vanity or ambition, eager to
attain social distinction; another may be sorely tempted to
forsake the better way, by a clear perception that the road
along which gifts and conscience bid him travel will be
rough, thorny, steep, and in all respects most repulsive to
flesh and blood. So was Jesus tempted to choose the path
of a worldly Messiahship. In His pure, holy soul the
passions of vanity and pride had no place; but His tempta-
tion in the wilderness was not on that account a mere sham-
fight. Two ways were set before His mental view, — how,
whether by objective Satanic suggestion, or by a vision in
which God's thoughts and the world's concerning Messiah's
career were placed in contrast side by side, it is immaterial
to our present purpose to inquire; — but, in point of fact,
the two ways were set before His mind, the way of popu-
larity on the one hand, and the way of the cross on the
other; and though the hosannas of the mob. and the insin-
cere homage of the higher classes of society, might have
small attractions for His lowly spirit, the wholesale deser-
tion of spurious disciples, the incapacity of even genuine
disciples to give Him the comfort of sympathetic com-
panionship as He walked through the valley of the shadow
of death, the hatred of sanctimonious religionists and of
selfish unscrupulous politicians, the treason of a false friend,
the infuriated crowd crying, "Away with him, away with
him," the horrors of crucifixion, — these all passing as dark

2 66 The Humiliation of Christ.

possibilities in panoramic view before His eye, were surely-
enough to make those " forty days and forty nights Christ
was fasting in the wild," days and nights of most real temp-
tation, of soul-trouble and agony, whereof forgetfulness
of physical wants was but the natural result, as it was the
fitting accompaniment ! For we must now observe, in the
second place, that not only may the same kind of tempta-
tion proceed from morally opposite causes, but the tempta-
vtion which proceeds from a holy source may be in degree
fiercer than that which has its origin in sinful lust. A
familiar illustration will make this plain. Suppose the case
of two men engaged in trade: one, a conscientious man,
whose maxim is: " First righteous, then as prosperous as
possible; " the other, a man not troubled with a passionate
love of righteousness, vulgar in moral tone, and bent above
all things on getting on in the world. Both are needy,
and are also placed in circumstances which bring gain
\within their reach, provided they do not stick at a little
fraud. Look now into the breasts of these men, and see
what takes place there. The one says to himself, " I am
embarrassed for want of money. I am not able to meet
my obligations; my wife's anxious face, and my children's
pinched features, make me wretched when I return home,
and haunt me continually in the market-place. Here is an
opportunity of obtaining relief from my difficulties by an
act of dishonesty not seldom committed by men of good
commercial standing. But, no; get thee behind me, Satan
— away with the hateful thought ! I dare not lie, I will
rather starve and beg than directly or circuitously tell an
untruth." The other says: " Ha ! here at last is a chance
for me. I have been miserably kept down hitherto. I shall
g€t my head above water now; I see my way clear to
making a very considerable profit by this transaction. No
doubt I shall have to indulge in a little sharp practice.
But what of that } Everybody does it; it is but a common
ta'ick of trade, and quite respectable; and whether it is
respectable or not, it is necessary, and I must do it."
Which, now, of these two men has the keener experience
of temptation .'' Surely the virtuous, conscientious man.
He passes through .a kipd of Gethsemane, an agony of

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 267

bloody sweat, a mortal struggle between love for wife and
children and desire to escape the disgrace of insolvency on
the one hand, and a moral revulsion from iniquity on the
other. The other man has no agony — he has not virtue
enough for that; there is nothing in him to stop the current
of evil suggestion and make it rage. He is not so much
a tempted one, as one who has been drawn away of his
own lust and enticed.

It thus appears that sinful dispositions, though certainly
making men more liable to fall before temptation, do not
increase the painful sense of being tempted, but rather
diminish it. As a matter of psychological experience, it is
the good man, not the bad, that is tempted. Temptation
presupposes an attitude of antagonism to evil, and springs
out of the difficulties encountered by all who make an earn-
est attempt to maintain this attitude. It is in this way
that temptation is regarded by the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in connection with his doctrine concerning the
sympathy of Christ with the tempted. The purpose he has
in view is, to comfort Christians under the difficulties con-
nected with the maintenance of their Christian profession,
which were in effect so many temptations to apostasy; and
the comfort he offers is: Jesus can sympathize with you, for
He was in all respects tempted as you are, without sin. And
from what has been said, it appears that, notwithstanding
the qualifying clause, Jesus was the companion of tempted
Christians in these two respects at least: He shared witht.
them the attitude of resistance to evil, and He maintained
that attitude against real, immense, and manifold difficul-
ties. His difficulties were not, indeed, in all respects the
same as those of His followers. A Christian, for example,
may have to do battle even unto blood with a lust or
appetite, or old habit that wars against his soul. Christ
had no such battle to fight. He endured the contradiction
of sinners, not that of inclinations to sin. But does that
fact cut the regenerated drunkard off from the sympathy
of his Redeemer .-' No; for in all essential respects his
temptation was experienced by Him who knew no sin. The
experience of the disciple consists in a conflict between the
will of the spirit and the desire of the flesh; the experience

268 The Hu7niliation of Christ.

of the Lord was essentially the same when He said,
" Let this cup pass," with the accidental, though most
momentous difference, that the desire of His sentient
nature was in itself innocent. The disciple, in obedience
to the will of God, has to put away the cup his flesh
craves; the Master, in obedience to the same will, had to
drink the cup from which His flesh shrunk. And while
the temptations of both are essentially the same, it is well
for the disciple that the accident of sinfulness was not
present in the desires of his Lord's human nature. For had
it been otherwise, what had been gained .'' Only com-
panionship in moral weakness: an attribute which may
qualify for receiving succour from the strong, but certainly
not for being a succourer to the weak.

The conclusion, then, to which the foregoing discussion
leads us is, that we need have no hesitation in understand-
ing the qualifying clause " without sin " as involving the ex-
clusion from Christ's human nature of all sinful proclivity,
lest, by so interpreting it, we imperil the reality or the
thoroughness of His experience of temptation, and rob our-
selves of the consolations arising out of His experimentally
acquired sympathy with the tempted.' But now another
question arises in connection with this same qualifying
clause, of which some notice must be taken before the
present subject can be regarded as discussed on all its
sides. "Without sin," by universal consent, signifies, at
least, " tempted, but never with sinful result." The ques-
tion readily suggests itself: How was this invariably happy
issue of all temptation secured or guaranteed .'' It is a
question much more easy to ask than to ansv/er, for the
mind of an inquirer is distracted by opposite interests,
whose reconciliation is a hard speculative problem. On the
one hand, there is a most legitimate jealousy of any method
of guaranteeing a sinless issue which tends to undermine
the reality of Christ's temptations; on the other, there is
the not less strong feeling, that any other than a sinless
result in His case cannot be seriously contemplated as a
real possibility. Under the influence of the former motive,

1 Vid. Appendix, Note B, for some remarks on the views of naturalistic theo-
logians on the subject of " the Flesh."

Christ the Subject of Tciiiptatioji. 269

one is inclined to describe Christ's moral state by the
phrase /c^i///// non pcccare, thereby ascribing to Him a power
of choosing and doing the right, which, however, implies
the opposite alternative as a possibility. But when we
allow our minds to dwell on the dignity of Christ's person,
and on the soteriological importance of His sinlessness, we
are impelled to alter our mode of expression, and for the
phrase, potjiit non peccare, to substitute the stronger one,
noil potidt pcccare, and maintain an impossibility of sinning.
Which of the two phrases is the more appropriate, or are "" !'
they both neccessary to express the whole truth; and if so,
how can they be reconciled, so that the one shall not virtu-
ally cancel the other ? On these questions, as we might
have expected, opinions differ widely; some preferring the
weaker phrase, as the true description of Christ's moral
condition during His life on earth; others insisting on the
stronger, as alone doing justice to the moral perfection of
the incarnate Son of God; while a third class see realized ^^
in Christ the unity of moral integrity and moral perfection,
at once the power not to sin and that which made sin im-
possible. Whether this third position can be speculatively
justified or not, there can be no doubt, at all events, that
the combination of the two formulas most accurately and
satisfactorily represents the facts. The potttit non signifies
that Christ's experience of temptation was real; that in His
temptations He was conscious of a force tending to draw
Him to evil. The non potuit, on the other hand, signifies y
that there was in Christ a counter force stronger than the
force of temptation, which certainly, though not without
effort, ensures in every case a sinless result. In this view
of our Lord's experience of temptation, which makes it
consist in a constant conflict of two unequal opposing forces,
it becomes very important to provide that a due proportion
between the conflicting powers shall be maintained. If the
truth represented by the potnit non — viz., that the force of
temptation was strong enough to create the consciousness
of a struggle — be overlooked, then the whole curriculum of
moral trial through which Jesus passed on earth degener-
ates at once into a mere stage performance. This one-
sided tendency characterized the ancient Church, and finds

270 The Humiliation of Christ.

apt expression in the saying of John Damascenus, already-
quoted, that Christ " repelled and dissipated the assaults of
the enemy like smoke." ^ In modern times this doketic view
finds no acceptance; theologians of all schools being agreed
that the forces of evil, with which the Son of Man fought
so noble a fight, were not shadows, but substantial and
formidable foes. Even those who, with the Catholic Church
of all ages, believe in the essential divinity of Christ, ener-
getically protest against the divine element being brought
in as an overwhelming force on the side of good, so as to
make the force at work on the side of evil relatively zero.
The divinity, while regarded as potentially infinite, is con-
ceived of as, in its applied form, only a finite power barely
sufficient to counterbalance another operating in Christ's
person in an opposite direction. In the eloquent words of
^js'-a Scottish theologian, the work of the divine nature is "not
to raise Christ's suffering nature to such a height of glori-
ous power as would render all trial slight and contemptible;
but to confer upon it such strength as would be infallibly
sufficient, but not more than sufficient, just to bear Him
through the fearful strife that awaited Him, without His
being broken or destroyed, — so that He might thoroughly
experience, in all the faculties of His soul and body, the
innumerable sensations of overpowering difficulty, and
exhausting toil, and fainting weakness, and tormenting
anguish, though by the Holy Ghost preserved from sin, —
and might touch the very brink of danger, though not be
swept away by it; and feel all the horror of the precipice,
but without falling over."^

This passage may be accepted as a satisfactory statement

1 Lecture ii. p. 72.

2 Sermon on the sympathy of Christ, by the late Professor M'Lagan, published
in the work of Mr. Dods, On the Incarnation of the Eternal Word; see pp. 299,
300 of that work. This admirable discourse contains some well-selected examples
illustrative of the truth, that temptations arising out of sinless infirmities may be
far fiercer than those which arise out of sinful appetites. The author compares
tlie cravings of the intemperate palate for wine, with the natural thirst of the
parched traveller in the desert; the pampered appetite of the epicure, with the
ravenous hunger of the famishing man, whose fearful power is exhibited in the
story of the siege of Samaria, when mothers bargained to slay m succession their
own children.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 271

of the view of Christ's temptations held in common by
Christologists of the Reformed tendency, who have ever
been anxious so to conceive of our Lord's person, as to
leave to the forces to temptation ample room wherein to
display themselves. And as a clear exposition of what is
required, in order that Christ's experience of temptation
may possess the maximum degree of reality or intensity,
without prejudice to His sinlessness, this statement leaves
nothing to be desired. It is manifest, however, that the
sentences quoted contain rather the statement than the
solution of a problem. The necessity for an adjustment of
the conflicting powers, so that they shall bear some finite
proportion to each other, is distinctly recognised; but how
the adjustment is brought about, how the potentially in-
finite force becomes finite in effect, is not explained. The
question obviously carries us back to the already discussed
problem of the kenosis. Moreover, even after that question
has been disposed of, another comes up for consideration —
viz., in what way is the divine force, become finite, made
available as an aid to the successful resistance of tempta-
tion .'' The only hint at an answer to this question in the
foregoing extract is contained in the words, " though by /
the Holy Ghost preserved from sin." The hint, brief though
it be, condenses the substance of what the orthodox Re-
formed Christology has said on the subject to which it
refers. That Christology, as we know, lays great stress on
the influence of the Holy Spirit as the source or cause of
Christ's holiness, representing the human wisdom and virtue
of our Lord as qualities produced in His human nature by \/
the Logos through His oivri Spirit.^ This view may be
construed to mean that the divine power, as an aid to
holiness against temptation to sin, acted not directly as a
physical force, but as a moral force taking the form of
ethical motive. Thus construed, the representation in
question is one of great importance; for undoubtedly the
victory of Christ over temptation, to have ethical value,
must be ethically brought about. It must not be the
matter-of-course result of the physical ground of His being,
but the effect brought about by the operations of the Holy
' Vid. Lecture iii. p. 125.

2/2 The Humiliation of Christ.

Spirit dwelling- in Him in plenary measure, helping Him to
exercise strong faith and to cherish lively hope, and in-
spiring Him with a love to His Father and to men, and
with a consuming zeal for righteousness, which should be
more than a match for all the temptations that might be
directed against Him by Satan and an evil world, acting
on and through a pure but tremulously sensitive human
nature. So regarded, Christ's strife with sin is a fair fight,
and His conquest a moral achievement, and the physical
divine ground is simply the guarantee that gracious influ-
ences shall be supplied to the adequate extent. Doubtless
the mystery remains how the guarantee comes into play, so
as to ensure the desired result, through the operation of
such influences. But the burden of that mystery presses
equally on all who, whatever their theory of Christ's per-
son, agree in maintaining His sinlessness; and no advocate
of any modern theory has succeeded in saying anything
better fitted to remove the load, than what was wont to be
said by the expounders of the old Reformed Christology.
Schleiermacher ensures Christ's sinlessness by a doctrine
of determinism which excludes moral freedom, and which
is able to dispense with the miracle of the Virgin-birth by
making Christ's whole sinless life a physical miracle.^
Rothe seeks his guarantee partly in the supernatural origin
of Jesus, involving freedom from original sin; partly in His
comparatively perfect upbringing in a circle which, through
the Hebrew Scriptures, was in possession of the means of
knowing fully the difference between good and evil, so that
there was no risk of the holy child falling into sin through
ignorance; partly in the moral energy acquired in the course
of thirty years spent in virtuous retirement, which Jesus, in
ripe manhood, brought to the hard task of His public
career,'' — all which, taken together, rendered sinlessness
possible, or even, we may admit, probable, but not certain.
The adherents of the modern kenotic theory have not been
much more successful than these advocates of a purely
humanitarian view of our Lord's person. One says, that
Jesus would, in fact, maintain His innocence was foreseen,

' Der ckristliche Glaiibe, Band ii. p. 67 (§ 97).
8 T/ieologische Ethik, Band ii. pp. 280, 28 1.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 273

and therefore the risk involved in the Incarnation was run.'
Another ascribes to Jesus a non posse peccareixova the outset,
as a distinction necessarily belonging to a theanthropic un-
created personality, whose becoming in time was preceded
by an ethical being, the benefit of which He reaped on
entering into the incarnate state. ^ A third contents him-
self with saying that the incarnate Son of God could not
deny Himself; the man Jesus, therefore, could not sin. His
human historical will could not enter into contradiction
with the eternal divine will dwelling within it, and the
eternal God became man just because this was the way to
certain victory over sin.^ A fourth, while admitting that a
posse pcccare v^'dis a possibility involved in freedom, repre-
sents it as only an abstract possibility which could not in
Christ's case be realized.* A fifth lays stress on the pre-
dominant passion of Christ's will preventing the slightest
trembling in the balance, while the free will of all other
men is intrinsically indifferent;^ which was certainly a
characteristic of our Lord as a matter of fact; but the
question forces itself on us, Whence this difference between
Christ and all other men .'' The fact is the very thing to be
accounted for. Yet another, to mention just one more,
teaches that t\\Q potuit non peccare and the non pot2iit ptxcare,
so far from excluding, rather imply each other; that the
sinlessness of Christ is accounted for, neither by His free
ethical fight with temptation alone, nor by His holy
natural development alone, but by the union of both; and
that the guarantee that the possibility of evil should never
become a reality lay, not in Christ's virtue or innocence,
the relation of merely negative goodness to temptation
being always doubtful, not in the divine nature viewed
apart from the human, any more than in the human nature
viewed apart from the divine, but in the indissoluble bond
between the two natures; a bond which could be strained
to the uttermost by the power of temptation, but which

' Gess. See Lecture iv. p. 150.
' Liebner. See Appendix, Note B, Lecture iv.
3 Hofmann. See Appendix, Note C, Lecture iv.
< Thomasius, Chris ti Person ttnd IVerk, ii. p. 126.

5 Mr. Hulton, Essays, Theological and Literary, p. 261. See Appendix, Ncte
F, Lecture iv.

274 ^^'^ Humiliation of Christ.

could never be broken asunder. Of all the utterances of
the kenotic school this is the most satisfactory, and it
emanates from one whose Christological theory comes
nearest to the Reformed type.'

II. In the same book of the New Testament in which
Christ is represented as passing through an experience of
temptation, He is also spoken of as the subject oi mo I'al de-
velopment. The tempted one is conceived of as in course
o{hQ.\vL^ perfected, and when the curriculum of temptation
is ended He is regarded as perfect. The notion of perfect-
ing, reAe/ojoi?, is applied to Christ four times in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. It is first introduced in the second chapter,
where the Captain of salvation is represented as being per-
fected through sufferings; ■ it reappears in the fifth chapter,
where it is said of the Son of God that, being made perfect,
He became the Author of eternal salvation;^ it occurs for
the third time in the seventh chapter, where the Son, in
the state of exaltation after His state of humiliation is
past, is described as perfected for evermore;' and finally,
it may be recognised in that place of the twelfth chapter
where Jesus is called the leader and perfecter of faith; the
idea being, that faith was one of the things in which Jesus
Himself was perfected, and in which, therefore. He is a
model to all Christians."

That these two doctrines — viz. that Christ on earth was
tempted, and that during the same period He was the sub-

' Martensen, Die chrisiliche Dogmatik, pp. 263, 264: Die Mc):;lichkeit des BOsen
regt sich auch in clem zweiten Adam; dass aber diese MOglichkeit niemals Wirk-
lichkeit wird, wie in dem er.sten Adam, sondern nur als der dunkle Gruiid fiir die
Offenbarung der Ileiligkeit dienen muss, dafur biirgt nicht die Tugend oder die
Unschuld, denn deren Veihaltniss zur Versuchung ist immer gar ungewnss und
zweifelhaft, nicht die gOttliche Natur in ihrer Trennung von der menschlichen,
auch nicht die menschliche Natur in ihrer Trennung von der gOtllichen, sondern
das unaufiOsUche Band zwischen der gOttlichen und menschlichen Natur, ein Band
das zvvar bis zum aussersten Gegensatz und zur Mussersten Spannung zwischen
den Naturen gebogen und bewegt werden, niemals aber zerreissen kann (p. 264).

2 Heb. ii. lo: 8i6l TtaQiiftdrcov reXstcSdat.

3 Heb. V. 9: Mcxi rsXEioodsli lyevEzo roli vTtaKovov6iv avTi2 nadit
ai'rioi 6corripiai aicoviov.

■* Heb. vii. 28: viov sli rov ai(3va teteXeigohsvov.

* Heb. xii. 2: toy rfji 7ti6vEODi dpxyyov xai TE/\.Eta}rj}v^lT/dovy-

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 275

ject of a perfecting process — should be taught by the same
inspired writer, so far from being surprising, is rather a
matter of course. For the two doctrines imply each other,
and are complementary of each other. Wherever there is
temptation, there is something to be learned, something that
is actually learned; if not the habit of watchfulness against
some moral infirmity whose presence has been revealed by
temptation at least the virtues of patience and sympathy,
and the nerd and use of faith and prayer. On the other
hand, wherever there is room for a process of perfecting,
there is room also for temptation. For as the perfect state
is a state tempation-proof, so a state short of perfection is
a state of liability to be tried and proved by temptation, and
capable of being advanced, by this very trial and proof, to
the higher perfect state in which temptation can have no
place, because neither in the subject nor in His environment
do the necessary conditions any longer exist.

In these observations I proceed, it will be observed, on
the assumption that the notion expressed by the term
zEXiiLQD6ii has an ethical import, as applied to Christ in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. This has been disputed, and the
statements referred to have been explained to signify that
Christ, by His earthly experience, was qualified for His
office as High Priest; that on His ascension into glory He
was, so to speak, consecrated or solemnly installed as a
Priest whose sacerdotal office should last for ever, a Priest
after the order of Melchizedek; and that at the same
time He entered into a state of perfect personal felicity,
exempt now and for ever from the infirmities and miseries
of the days of His flesh. But the truth is, the term in
question covers all these ideas, and that of moral develop-
ment over and above. The perfecting process has refer-
ence at once to Christ's office, to His condition, and to
His cJiaracter. These three aspects, far from being mu-
tually exclusive or incompatible, rather imply each other.
For example, suppose we understand the passage in
the second chapter as signifying that, by suffering, the
Captain of salvation was perfected, fully fitted for His
office of Saviour, the question at once arises, In what does
the outfit of a Captain of salvation consist 1 What if that

2/6 The Hiuniliation of Christ.

outfit should be found to include very specially a bond of
sympathy between Leader and led, based on a common
experience of hardship, and inspiring- in those who are to
be conducted to glory unbounded confidence in their Con-
ductor ? Why, then, it would follow that an ethical in-
gredient enters into the process of official perfecting. The
Captain becomes perfectly fit for His office by this means,
among others, that through comradeship in suffering He
learns that intense sympathy with His followers which
gains their hearts, and so gives Him unlimited moral power
over them. Or, again, suppose we take perfected as signi-
fying beatified — introduced into a state of perfect felicity.
Whenever we begin to consider what such a state involves,
we perceive that an ethical element enters into it. Part of
Christ's felicity in the state of exaltation consists in His
being delivered from those infirmities to which He was sub-
ject in the state of humiliation, and by which He was ex-
posed to powerful temptations. That is to say, Christ's
entrance into heavenly bliss signifies this among other
things, that He thereby passed from a state in which He
could be tempted into a state in which He cannot be tempted,
— a transition implying an ethical progress from the incom-
plete to the perfect.

It thus appears that, whether we start from the official
or from the beatific point of view, we end at last in an
ethical conception of the TsXeicodi'; predicated of Christ.
And there can be no doubt that the writer of the Epistle,
in which the deep thought expressed by that word is found,
gives to the ethical side marked prominence. When he
speaks of Christ as perfected for His office, he adduces the
proof of His perfection thus: " In that He Himself hath
suffered, being tempted. He is able to succour them that
are tem.pted."^ Nor is this faculty of help connected with
personal experience of temptation in a merely casual way,
as if it would have made little difference though the experi-
ence had been dispensed with. On the contrary, a curri-
culum of temptation is represented as indispensable, by
way of training for office. "Wherefore in all things it be-
hoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He

' Heb. u. 1 8.

Christ the Sicbjed of Temptation. 277

might be a merciful and trustworthy High Priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the
people."^ In the second passage, in which the idea of
perfectification occurs, it might be very fairly contended
that the ethical side was the one directly and immediately
presented to view, inasmuch as the thought is introduced
in connection with the statement that Christ, though a Son,
yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered. It
seems a very legitimate inference, that "being made per-
fect " means, perfected in the virtue of obedience. But
granting that we ought rather to interpret the phrase as
signifying perfected for office, still it is impossible to deny
that in the writer's view the process of perfecting has an
ethical aspect. Christ's obedience to His Father is re-
garded as a quality which fits Him for receiving in turn the
obedience of others, and for being the Author of eter-
nal salvation to all them that do obey Him. And this
obedience of His is spoken of as something learned; and,
reading backwards, we find that the learning was by no
means easy, but very irksome indeed, to flesh and blood.
Thus we get the thought that, in order to perfect fitness
for the office of Saviour as a Royal Priest, Jesus, in the
days of His flesh, in the school-days of His earthly life,
underwent a process of moral training whose end was to
perfect Him in the virtue of obedience, and which was
adapted to that end by the tremendous severity of the
tasks prescribed, and the trials proposed. The official per-
fecting thus embraces within it a process of moral perfect-
ing, which leaves the subject thereof in a higher moral
state at the end than it found Him at the beginning. And
this idea of a moral growth is by no means slurred over by
the writer; on the contrary, he employs all his powers of
eloquence to give it the greatest possible breadth and
vividness. Starting from the general principle that no
right-minded man taketh to himself offices of honour and
high responsibility, above all, such an office as tliat of the
priesthood, but only in obedience to a divine call,^ he ap-

' Heb. ii, 17.

* Heb. V. 4: xai ovx eavrcS rz? Xaju/Sdvat Tt)v ri/iijv.

278 The Humiliation of Christ.

plies it to the case of Christ by the remark: " So also Christ
glorified not Himself to be made an high priest."' Then,
to show how utterly remote such a thought was from the
Saviour's mind, how utterly innocent He was of the spirit
of self-glorilication, in connection with the office to which
He was called by the voice of God in Scripture, the writer
goes on to describe the agony in Gethsemane endured by
the Great Priest, just before He passed through the rent
veil of His flesh, to make an offering for the sin of the
world. ^ It is as if he had said: "Jesus took the honour of
the priesthood on Himself.'' Ah, no ! there was no tempta-
tion to that, in connection with an office in which the
Priest had to be at the same time victim. Let the agony in
the garden bear witness that Jesus was not in the mood to
arrogate to Himself the sacerdotal dignity. That agony
was an awfully earnest, utterly sincere, while perfectly sin-
less, Nolo Pontifex Fieri on the part of One who real-
ized the tremendous responsibilities of the post to which
He was summoned, and who was unable for the moment
to find any comfort in the thought of its honours and pro-
spective joys." It almost seems as if the writer had it in
mind to suggest a parallel between Christ passing through
the struggle in the garden, and the high priest of Israel
presenting an offering first for himself before officiating in
behalf of the people, — a parallel to the extent that in both
cases there was a confession of weakness. Such a parallel
is suggested by the sacrificial expression " offered up," used
in reference to Christ's prayers with strong crying and tears;
and also by the statement that He was heard for His piety,
which seems to hint that His offering was accepted, even
as that of the high priest was wont to be. The high priest's
sacrifice for himself was accepted because it was a sincere
confession of sin; Christ's prayer for Himself was accepted
because it was an unreserved confession of weakness, un-
accompanied by sin, inasmuch as its last word was, " Not
as I will, but as Thou wilt." The high priest was accepted
for the piety of sincere penitence; Jesus was accepted for

> Heb. V. 5: ovrooi nai 6 Xpidroi ovx savvov Ido^ccds ysvrfOt/yat
2 Heb. V. 7.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 279

the piety of filial submission, triumphing over the sinless,
though extreme, weakness of sentient human nature.*

It thus appears that the writer of this Epistle, far from
glossing over the contrast between the imperfect and the
perfect states of Christ, rather makes it as glaring as pos-
sible. His manifest design is, to represent our Lord's
weakness as going to the utmost limits short of actual dis-
obedience and sin. He has a double purpose in view, one be-
ing to magnify the merit of an obedience loyally rendered
under so trying circumstances — to show, in fact, that one
who passed through such an cxperimentiim criicis was indeed
morally perfect. The other purpose is to make evident
how thoroughly fitted Jesus is to sympathize with the weak,
He Himself having been compassed about with so great
infirmity. He portrays the agony in lurid colours, for the
same reason that it is so carefully recorded in the Gospels,
and, may we not add, for the same reason that Jesus Him-
self allowed His inward trouble to appear so plainly in the
presence of three witnesses, by whom it might be reported
to all the world. Had He thought of Himself only, He
might, like many a sufferer, have played the stoic. But He
thought of the weak of all ages; therefore He hid not
His own weakness, but gave it full vent in prayers and
tears, and loud cries and prostrations, falling forward
all His length on the ground, now praying in articulate
language, now uttering inarticulate groans, anon subsiding
into silent weeping; His soul resembling the sea in a storm,
vv^hen the great billows rise up at a distance from the shore,
roll on majestically nearer and nearer, then break on the
sands with a mighty noise audible to men even in their
slumbers.

In the third place, where the notion now under discussion
occurs in the Epistle, the ethical aspect is not less con-
spicuous than in the two preceding. The Son, constituted
a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not by the Leviti-

• So Hofmann, Sc/irifibeiveis, ii. 399, to whom I am indebted for the thought
in the text. Hofmann says: Jesu Flehen um Abwendung des Todesleidens ist
gleicher Massen wie des Hohepriesters Opfer fQr sich selbst eine fromme Aeusserung
der Schwachheit, nur mit dem Unlerschiede, welcher zwischen der Schwachheit
d/s -lindigcn Hohepriesters und der des siindlosen Heilands besteht.

2 So TJie Humiliation of CJi-rist.

cal law, but by the word of the oath, is described as
" perfected for evermore," in contrast with the Old Testa-
irjent high priests, who are described as " men having-
infirmity." The infirmity alluded to is such as lays men
open to temptations, through which they often fall into sin;
such, therefore, as, in the case of the high priests, was
indirectly the cause why they had to offer a sacrifice for
themselves before offering one for the people. The perfect-
ing of the Son, consequently, must be held to consist in
deliverance from infirmity of the same kind; infirmity, that
is, through which, in the days of His flesh. He became
liable to temptation, and sin became a possibility, though
nothing more than a bare possibility for Him. To be liable
to temptation is regarded as a morally incomplete state,
and the perfect state is conceived of as a state of exaltation
above the region of temptation, where there is no infirmity
to be used as a fulcrum by the tempter, and no tempter to
take advantage of an opportunity.

The rsXeiGodii of Christ, then, according to the representa-
tion of it given in the Epistle to the Hebrews, includes a
process of moral perfecting. This process does not exhaust
the idea; for the perfection ascribed to Christ after His
departure from the world is a comprehensive name for His
state of exaltation in all its aspects, whether regarded as
the state in which He exercises His Melchizedek priest-
hood, or as that in which He is free from the miseries of this
mortal life, and enjoys the felicity of the life unending; or
as that in which He is for ever exempt from temptation,
and raised above the position of one undergoing moral pro-
bation. All that is here insisted on is, that this last item
forms an essential and important part of the idea. The
exalted Christ is regarded by the writer of the Epistle as
one now morally perfected; the earthly state of humiliation
is regarded as a school of virtue, in which Christ had to
learn, and did thoroughly learn, certain moral lessons; the
experience of temptation is viewed in the light of a curri-
culum of ethical discipline, designed to make the tempted
One master of certain high heroic arts, the arts to be mas-
tered being those oi Patience, Obedience, and Sympatiiy.

The fact having been thus ascertained, that the notion of

Christ the Subject of Temptation, 281

moral development as applied to Christ has a foundation in
Scripture, it remains to advert briefly to two questions
which have been much discussed in connection with the
present topic. One of these questions naturally arises out
of that view of our Lord's earthly experience according to
• which it was a training for His office as the Saviour. The
question is this: When, then, did Christ enter on His , ,
priestly duties ? was it on earth when He suffered on the
cross, or was it not till He had ascended into glory ? The
question was first formally propounded and discussed by
Faustus Socinus; but theological controversy may be said
to have stumbled on its threshold as early as the days of
Nestorius and Cyril. The Antiochian school, true to its
ethical tendency, insisted strenuously on the reality of a
moral growth in Christ, and regarded His experience of
temptation as an ethical discipline, by which He was pre-
pared for the office of tlie priesthood. Conceiving that
office as an honour, they spoke of Christ as advancing
gradually to the dignity of high priest.^ Cyril, on the other
hand, admitted neither the growth nor the conception of
the priestly office as an honour. He affirmed that Christ
grew in virtue as in wisdom — that is, only in the sense of
graduated manifestation; and the notion of a gradual
advance to the priesthood as an honour, he combated by
asking his opponents the question. If the priestly office was
an honour to which Christ advanced, what becomes of the
kenosis .? ^ Thus, on the one side, the sacerdotal functions
of Christ were referred to the category of exaltation, while
on the other they were thought of as belonging to the state
of humiliation. In justice, however, to the theologians of
Antioch, it must be borne in mind that their position does
not necessarily signify, that Christ's priesthood was wholly

' Cyril, Adv. Nestoriiim, lib. iii. cap. 3. Cyril quotes Nestorius speaking of
Christ as ojJroS 6 Hard /.iiupov sti apxtspsooi Ttpo^iotpai d^ico/Lia {Op.
vol. ix. p. 148). Fid. also Apologeticus pro XII. capitibus, Anath. x. ; and
Apol. contra Theodoreium, Anath. x.

' Cyril, Adv. Nest. lib. iii. c. 4: Kehevcoke Srj ovv, nal VEraTtEivcDHBv
eavzov naQsii kv ueiodf Jlcai ovv i'rt npoeKoipev eii dqicoiua ys-
yovoo<i iepEvi (p. 152). Similarly in the other places referred to in preceding
note. Ei ds npoeuoTpE, Kara viva xaHercotat rpoTfov: El TtpoEHotpSf

TtdSi KEHEVCOzat, Uai £7CroJXEV6EV.

282 The H^Liniliation of Christ.

relegated to a state of exaltation subsequent in time to the
state of humiliation, and commencing after the latter was
at an end. It might mean only that the office, which in
one respect was a humiliation, was in another respect, and at
the same time, an honour for which Jesus was gradually-
prepared by His course of obedience. In that case it is
quite conceivable, that at least some of the duties pertain-
ing to the high and honourable office might be performed
on earth, and so fall within what we are accustomed to call
the state of humiliation. In point of fact, Nestorius and
his brethren of the same school did regard Christ's death
as a priestly sacrifice, while apparently regarding it also
as the last step in the process by which Christ was pre-
pared for His Melchizedek priesthood, and became abso-
lutely a pontifex consiimmatus} In this double way of con-
templating our Lord's passion — as on one side a humiliation,
on another an exaltation; and ag^in, as in one respect the
final stage of a preparatory discipline, intended to qualify
the sufferer for an eternal priesthood, and in another the
offering of Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world —
the Syrian theologians were much superior to Cyril, who
deemed dignity and suffering incompatible notions, failed
to see that it was an honour to Christ to be appointed to
an office which permitted and required Him to taste death
for every man, and was therefore virtually compelled to
regard the priestly office solely as an indignity to which
the Son of God was subjected in the state of exinanition.
If the views of the Antioch school of Christologists were
such as now represented, then the credit belongs to it of
anticipating the true answer to the question raised ia modern
times by the founder of the Socinian sect.^ For here, as
in so many other cases, truth lies on both sides of the con-
troversy. A candid and unbiassed examination of all the
relative passages shows that two distinct, though not con-
tradictory, ways of regarding the priesthood of Christ are
to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Priest of
the New Dispensation is the Antitype at once of Aaron and

1 Cyril. Apol. contra Thccdor. Anath. x.: oJ Ttd6r]i duapria? VTtdpxoov
eXEvOepoi, dpxjepevi r]H(2v, xai iepElov kyevEzo- aurdS eavcdv vnsp
ifUGOV ic(S (yecj 7tpo6svEyHojv (vol. ix. p. 437).

2 See Appendix, Note C.

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 283

of Melchizedek. Regarded in the latter capacity, He is
undoubtedly conceived of as entering upon His priesthood
on His ascension into heaven, and this in entire harmony
with the nature of the priesthood after the order of Mel-
chizedek. For that order or species is the ideal of priest-
hood realized, and as such possesses the attributes oi eternity,
perfect personal righteousness as the qualification for office,
regal dignity, and a corresponding state of felicity. In this
light the Melchizedek priesthood is regarded by the writer
of our Epistle. Introduced first apologetically, as a wel-
come means of showing that the Scriptures knew of an-
other kind of priesthood besides the Levitical, and that
therefore it was possible for Christ to be a priest though
destitute of the legal qualifications, the idea, if we may say
so, grows on the writer's mind till the more ancient in-
stitution, which on first view might appear a rude, irregular,
and every way inferior species of priesthood, quite eclipses
that which took its origin under the law, and, in accordance
with the prophetic oracle in the iioth Psalm, becomes not
only a HigJi priesthood, but the highest possible priest-
hood; the ideally perfect order, whose specific character-
istics are carefully ascertained by laying stress on the min-
utest particulars recorded concerning Melchizedek; nay,
by emphasizing not only the utterances, but even the si-
lences, of holy writ respecting that mysterious character.
The name of that ancient priest means, king of righteous-
ness; therefore perfect holiness must be one of the marks
of the ideal species of priesthood. His place of abode was
Salem, which means peace; therefore the appropriate seat
of the ideal priest is the region of celestial bliss, where he
is raised far above the sin and misery and strife which mo-
lest the vale of Sodom and Gomorrah, here below. Mel-
chizedek was a king as well as a priest, king of Salem while
priest of the Most High God; therefore the ideal priest must
be a priest sitting on a throne in regal dignity and glory.
Finally, the history makes no mention of Melchizedek's
parentage, birth, or death; therefore the ideal priesthood
is one which, unlike the Levitical, has no dependence on
descent, and which in its nature and its effects is eternal}

' Heb. vii, 1-3.

!84

The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

These being the notes of that species of priesthood whereof
there can be but one sample, it is manifest that Christ, as
the Melchizedek priest, properly enters on His office when
He has gone successfully through His curriculum of temp-
tation in the earthly school of virtue;^ when He is raised
higher than the heavens, thoroughly proved to be a holy,
harmless, undefiled Man, separate in character from sin-
ners;^ when He takes His place as a king on the right hand
of God, in the country of peace, the heavenly Salem;' when
He has passed out of the time-world into the eternal, where
there is no distinction between yesterday and to-day, and
where priestly functions have absolute eternal validity.*

Such, accordingly, is the representation given in the
Epistle of the priesthood of Christ, viewed as the Antitype
of Melchizedek. But is quite otherwise when the point of
view changes, from the primitive institution in ancient Salem,
to the legal priesthood in Israel. Jesus as the GREAT High
Priest exercises His office only in heaven: as the High
Priest, as a Priest after the fashion of Aaron, He exercised
His office on earth, and continued to exercise it when He
ascended into heaven. As a Priest after the order of
Aaron, He offered Himself a sacrifice on the cross, even as
Aaron offered the victim on the altar on the great day of
atonement; as a Priest after the same order, He presented
Himself in His humanity before His Father in heaven, even
as Aaron carried the blood of the slain victim within the
veil, into the presence of Jehovah. Then and there the
one species of priesthood became merged or transformed
into the other higher, highest ideal species: the priesthood

• Heb. V. lo: TIpo6ayopEv^EiZ vTto tov ©sov dpxispsv? xavd rrjv
rdc,iv MsXxiOsSeK — SiS it were, saluted by that name on entering heaven.

'-' Heb. vii. 26: "Odio?, dnajioi, d/.iiavToi, Hsxoopid/.isvoi drco t(2v
djuapTGoXoov, uai vipi^XozEpoi rmv ovpavcSv yevo/HEvo?.

3 Heb. X. 12: OuToi d£, ^iav vnip dpapTK^v TtpodEveyHaZ Ovdi'av
fj? TO StrjvEuei, IndOidEV kv dE^ia tov &eov — sat down a king-priest, in
contrast to the legal priests, who stattd daily ministering and offering oftentimes
the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. What a pathetic picture of
the sacerdotal drudge labouring as in a treadmill at the bootless work of offering
his tale of victims, — ever offering, never doing any real effectual service, — till death
came to relieve the melancholy official, and make his place vacant for a successor !

* Heb. vii. 16: "O? ov xard v6/xov kvroXiji dapuivrji ysyovEv, dXXd
Kara 8vvajj.iv ^ooiji auaraXi'Tov.

Christ the Subject of Te7nptation. 285

exercised in humiliation, into the priesthood associated with
regal dignity and glory: the priesthood whose functions
were performed by one compassed with and unreservedly
confessing infirmity, into the priesthood of one who, Himself
abiding in the City of peace, yet hath an undying sympathy
with the tempted and war-worn, and is ever ready to come
to their succour with bread and wine; the priesthood whose
one great achievement was the love- offering on Calvary,
into the priesthood of an endless life, which gives to that
historic work absolute perennial value. ^

The other question naturally arising out of foregoing dis-
cussions has reference to the reconcilability of the doctrine,
that Christ underwent a process of perfecting, with His
sinlessness, or, in, other words, to the possibility of a sin-
less development. Prima facie, the two ideas of sinlessness
and moral growth seem mutually incompatible, and one is
disposed to assume it as axiomatically certain, that the
imperfect or the incomplete has necessarily the nature of
evil. As an axiom, accordingly, this position was advanced
by Cyril against the Nestorian doctrine, that Jesus was
gradually perfected for His office, as taught by his Nestorian
opponents. Can any one doubt, he triumphantly asked,
that whatever comes short of the perfection of virtue is
blameworthy, and therefore sinful } ' It was a position
easy to take up, extremely plausible, and fitted to ensure
for the party whose cause it supported an immediate con-
troversial advantage. And yet even Cyril might have
dogmatized less confidently on this point, had he asked
himself the question. What would have been the moral
history of a holy child of Adam in case there had been no
fall .'' — a case which he would not have refused to regard as

' Vid. on the history of this controversy, Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hehrcier-
briefes, p. 466, where also \/ill be found a good statement of the solution of the
difficulty, in substantial agreement with that given above. Vid. also Hofmann,
Schriftbfweis, vol. ii.

2 Adv. Nestoriurn, p. 153: iZoJs av j) jtoSsv kvSoiddEte Tii, on to i^^iap-
TrjHoZ rov reXEiaoi e'xovroi Hard, dperjjv, vtvo juwjiiov edrat, xal ovh
Eii dnav TEBavjiiadjiisvov, jitdXXoy Ss rdxct itov nai vtCo ypacprjv
dixapriai. Also contra Theodoret, Anath. x. p. 444: E/ zEXElrai ytafl dps-
TTfv, £| dzEXovi dr/XovSri, nai kv xpovm ysyovE zeXeio'-,' to Ss dtEAei
aTtav Eli apETrjv, vito /xcoixov ypaq^rjv to Se vito /.Ka/xov , vcpi' djitap-
Tiav. Ilcai ovv yiypaitTai nspi avzov ozi ^AjxapTiav ovk ETCoir/dE;

286 ' The Humiliation of Christ.

a possibility. Such a child would certainly have undergone
a process of real growth in wisdom and goodness, keeping
pace with his growth in physical stature. If so, then the
sinlessness of His human nature was no reason why Jesus
should not experience a similar process of growth. If the
growth predicated of Him in the gospel history was, as
Cyril strenuously maintained, not real but doketic, exhibl-
tive merely, the reason lay not in the absence of sin, but in
the presence of the divine nature — i.e. it was metaphysical,
not ethical. Even if that reason were valid, its effect would
not be to settle the question as to the possibility of a sinless
moral development, but simply to make the case of Christ
exceptional. The ethical problem would still remain, and
rhight be discussed without reference to the peculiar case of
incarnate Deity, in reference to the hypothetical case of an
unfallen child of Adam, yea, even in reference to the real
case of unfallen Adam himself. Adam before his fall was
sinless; but was he perfect .-* If he was, how did he fall so
easily before what appears a slight temptation } If a state
so insecure was perfection, how shall we characterize that
state of stable moral equilibrium, in which the subject is
temptation-proof .-' Manifestly, whether we be able specula-
tively to justify it or not, we must at least recognise as
real, the distinction between moral integrity and moral per-
fection: the former expression denoting the initial state of
a being free from sinful inclination and habits, but liable to
temptation and to the possibility of falling; the latter signi-
fying the final state of the same being after he has success-
fully passed through his curriculum of temptation, and has
become morally infallible.

An aid to faith in, if not to a speculative comprehension of,
this distinction, may be found in the analogy of physical
nature. In the physical world, growth by stages is the law.
There is first the blade, then the green ear, then the ripe
corn in the ear, in the production of grain; first the blos-
som, then the crude fruit, then the ripe fruit, in the produc-
tion of the apple and other products of like kind. Christ
Himself has taught us, in one of His parables, that the
same law obtains in the spiritual world, the kingdom of
God. There, too, both in the commonwealth at large and

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 2^7

in individual citizens, there is " first the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear."^ It is true, indeed, that
this law of growth ordinarily applies to subjects whose
development is abnormal, proceeding from a state of sin by
a very chequered, wayward course, to a state of Christian
sanctity. But the parallel drawn in the parable between
the natural and the spiritual might of itself teach us, that
the abnormality of the development is not the cause why
the law of gradual growth obtains in the spiritual sphere.
In nature, abnormality is not the cause of growth, but sim-
ply an accident to which it is liable, owing to some vice in
the seed or tree, or to the unkindliness of the seasons
bringing about imperfect or retarded development. There
is no reason to think that the fact is otherwise in the moral
sphere. Growth there also is normal; the abnormal is
stunted retarded growth, due partly to vice of nature, partly
to the influence of an evil world, producing fruit inferior in
its kind, or which never attains to ripeness. Even in un-
fallen humanity there would have been first the blossom,
then the green fruit, then the ripe fruit: the blossom being
the state of integrity, the green fruit the period of proba-
tion, and the ripe fruit the ultimate condition of perfection
contemplated from the first, and at length arriving " in its
season."^ In the two stages preceding the last, man would
have been imperfect^ yet sinless. Imperfeet, because what
his Maker looked for, and what the law or ideal of his being
demanded, — the end to which all preceding stages were
means, — was the ripe fruit of a character perfected in
wisdom and goodness, by adequate trials of patience; yet
sinless, because God and the law of His being demanded
not ripe fruit immediately, but only in its season. To be
sinless, it is enough to be as you ought at each season — to
be a perfect blade at the blossoming period, a perfect green
ear at the earing period, and a perfect stalk of ripe grain
at the season of harvest. It is not sin to come short of the
requirements of the law as the ideal: sin consists in coming
short of the requirements of the duty incumbent on me in
given circumstances, and at any particular stage in my

' Matt. iv. 26-29.
= Ps. i. 3-

288 The Humiliation of Christ.

development.' It is not sin in childhood, the blossoming
time of human life, to think and speak as a child, and to be
incapable of the wisdom and moral sense of manhood: it is
enough to think and speak as a holy, innocent child. It is
not sin in young-manhood, the time of the green ear, to be
assailed by temptations to evil conduct, and to experience
profound embarrassment in connection with the question,
" What is truth ? " It is enough that the tempted and per
plexed youth choose aright his way of life, preferring the
ways of holiness and of faith to the ways of pleasure and of
Pyrrhonism.

How far the metaphysical consideration, that Christ was
a divine person, is a valid reason for denying the applica-
bility to Him of the category of moral development, need
not here be discussed. The point now insisted on is, that
no ethical objection to the application arises out of the fact
that He was sinless. It was possible for the holy One to
grow in grace, advancing gradually from the fair spring
blossom of early boyhood to the ripe fruit of perfect man-
hood. The wisdom of the boy of twelve years was such as
could not be excelled at that time of life: yet it was but a
boy's wisdom, and left ample room for expansion in all
directions. The child who made the doctors wonder by
His quick intelligence, and by His shrewd questions and
answers, could not then have preached the Sermon on the
Mount. The piety which found expression in the words,
" Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business } "
was a presage of that devotion which in later years took
for its motto, " My meat is to do the will of Him that sent
me, and to finish His work;" yet the former was but a
blossom of instinctive, half-conscious filial love, while the
latter was that blossom slowly ripened into a deliberate and
passionate self-consecration to a divinely-appointed task,
whose requirements were fully understood. Nor was Christ's
moral growth completed when He had reached mature
manhood. There was room for further progress, even after

' See Miiller, Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. i. pp. 58-69, where the problem
of a sinless development is solved by the distinction between )qw and duty, the
latter being defined as " the determinate moral requirement made upon a given
individual at a given moment of time."

Christ the Subject of Temptation. 289

He left the home of His childhood, and went forth to enter
upon His public ministry. His baptism in the Jordan
formed a crisis not merely in His outward life, but in His
inward spiritual history. At that point He entered on a |
new phase of being, in which He was to learn, through con-
tact with the world, moral lessons which could not be got
by heart in the seclusion of private life. Then He went to
school to become experimentally acquainted both with hu-
man wickedness and with human misery, and to learn to suffer
from the one and to sympathize with the other. The new
discipline in wisdom and virtue being high and abstruse,
the Disciple needed a heavenly baptism to make Him an
apt scholar; and hence, according to the gospel record, the
Spirit of God descended upon Him, as a Spirit of truth, a
Spirit of self-sacrifice, in the interest of righteousness, and
above all, as a Spirit of gracious compassion towards suffer-
ing humanity. We must beware, indeed, of exaggerating
the amount of learning acquired by Jesus after His entrance
on His public career, following the example of those nega-
tive critics, according to whom the Son of Mary went forth
from His retirement in Galilee with the vaguest possible no-
tions of what He was going to do, or of the destiny
awaiting Him — ignorant that He was the Messiah, ignorant
that the world was bad enough to crucify one who should
bear witness against its evil; conscious only of great powers
stirring within Him, and unable any longer to bear the
inactivity and dulness of life in Nazareth. Those who take
this view have not sufficiently considered what self-knowl-
edge and spiritual insight must have been reached, by such
a one as even sceptical critics admit Jesus to have been,
during the long period of privacy which the Gospels pass
over in reverential silence. In an important sense, we may
regard the life of unbroken stillness between twelve and
thirty as the time of the green fruit, between the blossom
and the ripe fruit; and the whole period of the public
ministry, on the other hand, as the season of harvest, in
which Christ appeared before the world mature in all
essential respects — in the knowledge of ] limsclf and of men,
in purpose as the Founder of the divnie kingdom, in plans
for the execution of His purpose, in zeal for righteousness^

290 The Humiliation of Christ.

\\\ pity for the sinful and the miserable, in perception of
moral and spiritual truth. Sermons on the Mount, philan-
thropic deeds, withering exposures of false religious pro-
fession, apologies for receiving sinners full of poetry and
pathos, the doctrine of the cross as the means of the world's
redemption, and as the stern law of life for Master and
disciple, — such was the rich and varied fruitage of the brief
harvest season for which the preceding lengthened period
of silent thought and hidden communion with the Father
in heaven was the preparation. By the time Christ entered
on His public career His education was complete, so far as
theoretic knowledge was concerned. But it is one thing to
know by contemplation ; it is quite another to know by experi-
ence. Fully equipped for His ministry of righteousness and
love at the outset, Jesus yet learned Himself while He taught
others; learned decision by temptation, zeal by the contra-
diction of sinners, sympathy by contact with the miserable,
obedience by suffering.

LECTURE VII.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS OFFICIAL ASPECT.

It remains now to consider the humiliation of Christ on its
soteriological or official side.

The apostle represents the Son of God, in His Incar-
nation, as taking upon Him the form of a servant. Our
Lord, on a memorable occasion, said of Himself, " I am
among you as the serving man." ^ These representations
cover the whole state of humiliation. The assumption of
servant-form is practically synonymous with becoming
man; and the word spoken by Jesus to His disciples at the
supper table might be taken as the motto of His whole life
on earth. From first to last He was among men as He
that serveth. Whose servant was He .'' God's or man's .-'
Both.'' The Servant of the Lord is one of Messiah's titles
in the prophetic Scriptures; and Jesus said of Himself,
*' The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister," the recipients of the service being those from
whom He might have claimed ministry. Jesus on earth
served His Father's will in filial loyalty, and man's need in
lowly love. What was the service .'' It has many names
in Scripture. We might say that Christ's task was to found
the kingdom of God, or we might prefer to say He came to
save sinners; or we might combine both in one view,
following the example of a recent writer, who regards

• Luke xxii. 27, a55 o Siauovwv.

2 In the passage in Philippians, the Gorlward reference of Chri'^t's service seems
to 1)6 nminly in view. There is a contrast intended between the position of equality
with God renounced, and the position of a JfTz/aw/ assumed: He who was God's
equal became God's servant

i.92 The Humiliation of Christ.

Christianity not as a circle with one centre, but rather as
an ellipse with two foci, the idea of the kingdom being one,
and the idea of redemption being the other.' For the pur-
pose of a preliminary definition, it will suffice to adopt the
poetic title given to the incarnate Son of God by the writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to call Christ, with ref-
erence to His work, "the Captain of salvation."

As the Captain, Leader, Author of salvation, commissioned
by the First Cause and Last End of all to conduct mauy
sons to glory, our Lord Jesus Christ has a variety of duties
or offices to perform. He is at once a Prophet, a Priest,
and a King. The former two of these three offices come
most prominently into view in His state of humiliation.
When our abject is to see how Christ humbled Himself as
the servant of God and of men, we have to consider Him
specially as the Apostle and the High Priest of our con-
fession— that is, on the one hand, as One sent forth from
God to speak His final, full, and perfect word to men; and,
on the other, as One acting for men in things pertaining to
God. In both these functions Christ acted on earth, under
appointment of the great First Cause and Last End, and
in connection with both He experienced humiliation. Not
that the offices of prophethood and of priesthood in them-
selves involve humiliation, for Christ exercises them both
still, in His state of exaltation. Nor did the reason of the
humiliation lie in this, that in the state of exinanition these
offices were severed from the kingly function, by union with
which they are now redeemed from indignity, and become a
royal prophethood and a royal priesthood. Christ exer-
cised both offices, even M'hen on earth, as a King, as the
Founder and Sovereign of the kingdom of God. To the
question of Pilate, " Art thou a king then .-* " the Prophet
of Nazareth replied, " I am a King; to this end was I born,
that I should bear witness unto the truth; every one that
is of the truth heareth my voice;"" and in His gracious in-
vitation to the weary, the meek and lowly One asked them
not only to learn of Him, but to take Flis yoke upon them.
In like manner Christ, in sacrificing Himself as a Priest,

> Ritschl, Die christUche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und VersShnung, vol.
iii. p. 6. ^ Joliii xviii. 17.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 293

acted as a King. It is true, indeed, that He spoke before-
hand of this very act of self-sacrifice, as the crowning evi-
dence that He came not to be ministered unto. But this
was only half the truth. He did come to be ministered
unto, and He exercised His ministry of love as a means to
that end. That was the way He took to get a kingdom,
as opposed to the way by which the princes of the world
attain sovereignty. He humbled Himself that He might
be exalted. The greatest made Himself servant with an
eye to lordship. Not in the offices themselves, then, nor
in their severance from the regal ofifice, did the cause of
humiliation lie. It lay in this, that as the Apostle of our
confession, come forth from God to reveal Him in the fulness
of His grace and truth unto men, Jesus had to exercise His
personal ministry among sinners; and that as the High
Priest of our confession He had to exercise His earthly
ministry before God, not only among sinners, but for sin-
ners, His ofifice requiring Him to act as their representa-
tive, to be in all things like His constituents, and to offer,
in their name and behalf, gifts and sacrifices for sins. In
the state of exaltation, the offices in question have no hu-
miliating accompaniments, because the prophetic office is
exercised by deputy, and the priestly office consists in a
sympathetic intercession which amounts to a perpetual
presentation of the one offering, by which the Sanctifier
perfected for ever them that are sanctified. It may be in-
structive to follow out separately the two lines of thought
just indicated, and to regard our Lord's humiliation, first,
as incurred in connection with His prophetic ofifice; and
secondly, as incurred in connection with His priestly ofifice.
By pursuing this method, we may hope not only to obtain
a somewhat full view of the indignities to which our blessed
Lord was subjected, and which He freely underwent as the
Captain of our salvation, but also to find legitimate oppor-
tunities for noticing, in at least a cursory way, the various
theoretic view-points from which the work of redemption
has been regarded. The method now proposed, let it be
further observed, will not involve the partition of the Sav-
iour's ministry into two distinct portions, following each
other in historical succession. It will rather mean, look-

294 ^^"^ Humiliation of Christ.

ing at the same ministry under two different aspects, In-
volving to a considerable extent the subsumption of the
same facts under different categories, and the explanation
of the same effects by different causes.

I. First, then, let us consider Christ as the Apostle of
our confession, that we may see what indignities He en-
dured in that capacity.

Christ's duty as the Apostle was to be by word, deed,
and character, the revealer, interpreter, or exegete of the
Father from whose bosom He came. Into that duty the
Captain of salvation threw Himself with ardour, as the gos-
pel history amply proves, and as is specially testified by the
fourth evangelist, when he writes, " The Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." The
divine Apostle by whom God spoke His last word to men
was faithful to Him that appointed Him; the Prophet like
unto Moses, as combining the offices of prophecy and gov-
ernment, said, eloquently and exhaustively, those things
whereof all that Moses said was but a testimony. The law
was faithfully given by Moses to Israel, as God gave it to
him on the Mount; but grace and truth became, came into
being through, were incarnated in, Jesus Christ.^ Christ's
fidelity, as the minister of grace and truth, was absolute.
Of His zeal as the minister of truth we have a typical ex-
ample in the cleansing of the temple, which recalled to the
remembrance of the disciples the word: " The zeal of Thine
house hath eaten me up; " ^ and of His devotion as the min-
ister of grace we have a not less striking example, in the
interview v/ith the woman of Samaria, at the close of which
He said to His disciples who bade Him eat: " My meat is
to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work."*
Through His fidelity, in both directions, Jesus brought upon
Himself manifold humiliations. As the minister of grace,

' John i. 17. On the antithesis between aSoBt] and kyaveto Godet remarks:
Le regime legal etait divin par son origine; le regime nouveau I'est par son origine
et par son essence. Cette superiorite intrinseque de I'evangile explique bien I'an-
tithese de iSoOi/ et kyivEVo. En effet, si I'expression a ete donnee rappelait
I'institution exterieure et positive de la loi, le terme sont vemtes designe avec force
I'effiision reelle et spontanee de la source divine elle-meme, jaillissant a flots sur la
terra. — Cominentaire sur V Evangile de Sainijfean, i, p. 212.

« John ii. 17. ^ John iv. 34.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 2gS

He made it His special business to preach the gospel to
the poor, the outcast, the morally bad, the socially dis-
reputable; and enthuasiasm in such evangelistic work
brought the penalty of misunderstanding and reproach.
Even well-affected persons, like the Baptist, stood in doubt
concerning the validity of claims to be the Messiah, made
by One who occupied Himself mainly in going about doing
good; for John expected the Christ to come full, not of
grace, but of the fury of the Lord, with axe or fan in hand;
and when the event disappointed his expectation, he sent
a doubting message of inquiry which put Jesus on His de-
fence, and compelled Him to criticise His own forerunner
that men might know what value to put on his present
attitude, and might not be offended in Himself/ In the
same love for the vile, the ill-affected found ample materials
for scandalous misconstruction. They called Jesus, with a
sneer, " the friend of publicans and sinners;" they asked,
in a tone of sinister insinuation, " Why eateth He with
such ? " — they answered their own question by a reckless^
charge of gluttony and drunkenness. The nickname, the
uncharitable query, the dishonourable imputation of the
evil-minded, once more put the Apostle of divine mercy
on His defence, and subjected Him to the humbling neces-
sity of making an apology for this strange unheard-of love
to the sinful; the apology itself being not less surprising
than the conduct apologized for, expressing in a few choice
sentences the quintessence of the gospel, and breathing in
every word the spirit of One who was verily not ashamed
to call the vilest of mankind His brethren.^ It might have
been expected that the miracles wrought by the divine
Evangelist would have protected His character from assault,
and saved Him the trouble of explaining His aims and
motives. Instead of doing this, however, they only stimu-
lated the wits of the unbelieving, to invent a theory which
should deliver them from the necessity of accepting an
unwelcome conclusion, and drove them on from the par-
donable sin of speaking evil and uncharitable words against
the Son of man, to the very brink of the unpardonable
wickedness of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, by ascribing
' Matt. xi. i-ii. 2 Matt. ix. 10-13; Luke vii. 36-50; Luke xv.

296 The Humiliation of Christ.

to Satanic agency, works wherein no ingenuous mind could
fail to recognise the power of the Spirit of God.^

While ever intent on His ministry of grace, Jesus did not
forget the other part of His commission, that, viz., of bear-
ing witness unto the truth. The two duties were in fact
interwoven, each with the other. In seeking the lost, and
bringing nigh to them the grace of God, the Saviour was
bearing witness in action -to a very important truth, viz.,
that true holiness does not separate itself from the unholy,
and that any holiness which takes the form of exclusiveness
is a heartless, hypocritical counterfeit. It was this well-
understood didactic meaning, embodied in His conduct,
that was the real source of offence. The Pharisees, who
were essentially men of the coterie in their religion, saw
at a glance that, in the manner of life followed by Jesus, a
new type of holiness totally diverse from their own was
revealing itself, and their instincts of self-preservation and
self-complacency forthwith took alarm. Hence arose in
their minds, at a very early period, an intense dislike of
the Prophet of Galilee. The men of that generation were
indeed to be pitied. God in His bounty had sent them two
prophets, neither of whom was at all to their taste; not
John, because he separated himself in disgust from those
who thanked God they were not as other men, and with
blunt sincerity tore off the mask with which they hid their
true character; not Jesus, because He was so genial and
sunny, so full of the gladness of One who felt Himself
anointed to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and,
in the exuberance of His love, so utterly disregardful of
the conventional barriers which separated the good from
the bad, the holy from the profane. Though He had done
no more than simply allow it to appear that He was full
of grace, such an one as Jesus would have borne a witness
to the truth emphatic enough, to give, without fail, decided
offence to men full only of spiritual pride and conceit.

Bv.t Jesus did much more than this. While scrupulously

careful not to give unnecessary offence, He did not conceal

God's righteousness, in fear lest prejudiced or evil-minded

men should take offence when none was intended. He used

3 Matt. xii. 22-32.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 297

to the utmost the wide liberty of the prophet, and, as
occasion offered, applied the plummet of truth to the whole
life of His time: pronouncing current religious profession to
be worthless and even pernicious, as amounting in effect to
the making void of God's law by the traditions of men;
solemnly declaring, in set discourse, that the righteous-
ness of the Scribes was not a passport into the kingdom of
heaven; and placing the qualifications of citizenship in at-
tributes totally diverse from those exhibited in the Pharisaic
character — in humility, godly sorrow, soul hunger for right-
eousness still unattained, purity of heart, meekness, charity,
and fidelity to God and duty, at all hazards. From such
speech offences were sure to arise, and they did arise. He
who, by His devotion as the minister of grace, had brought
on Himself the " indignities of the world," in the form of
nicknames, calumnies, irreverent, disrespectful criticism,
which compelled Him to defend Himself at the bar of
public opinion like any ordinary son of man, did also, by
His fearless zeal as the minister of truth, provoke against
Himself the bitter, determined "contradiction of sinners."
Therefore He had to give His back' to the smiters, and His
cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and His face to
shatne and spitting.^ He heard the defaming of many, fear on
every side; His speeches were reported by spies; His neigh-
bours watched for His halting, saying, " Peradventure He
will be enticed, and we shall prevail against Him, and we
shall take our revenge on Him." ^ His death was the
natural climax and crowning instance of the contradiction
provoked by His inextinguishable zeal for righteousness.
To such a length did the contradiction go; even to the in-
fliction of the cross, with all its pain and shame. We need
'not hesitate, out of regard to the higher meanings of our
Lord's death, to acknowledge this as an historical fact.
Whatever more that death meant, it meant this at least: the
witness for truth suffering for His fidelity in that capacity.
He had borne witness for three short years; men could en-
dure Him no longer, and that was the way they took to
get rid of Him. He had told them what true righteousness

' Isa. 1. 6.
« Jer. XX. 10.

298 The Humiliation of Christ,

was; He had opposed morality to ritualism, charity to
pride, the fear of God to the traditions of men, the reality
of spiritual worship to the shadows of ceremonialism, hu-
mility to ostentation; He had proclaimed the advent of a
divine kingdom based on these contrasts as its foundations*.
He had announced Himself as the King, not only God's
servant, but God's Son, the Hope of those who waited for
the consolation of Israel; and the cross was the world's
reply. In this light our Lord Himself presented His ap-
proaching death to His disciples, when first He began to
speak to them unreservedly concerning it. What He said
to them in effect was this: " I am destined to be a martyr
to the truth; I must suffer for righteousness' sake. The
elders, chief priests, and scribes hate me, and ere long they
will kill me. I cannot escape this doom, except by unfaith-
fulness— by resolving henceforth from prudential consid-
erations to speak no more in God's name; which I cannot
do, for His word is like a fire in my bones, and I can-
not refrain." ^

Such is a hasty sketch of the humiliation endured by
Christ in connection with His prophetic office. Now some
are content with this as a full account of the matter, and
see no need for any other way of explaining our Lord's
■sufferings on earth, than to regard these as the natural
inevitable results of the faithful discharge of His duty as
the Apostle of our confession. To such Christ is the Cap-
tain of salvation simply as the revealer of God, of His grace,
of 'His truth, of the perfect ideal of human character, of the
way of life that is God-pleasing; as the example of faith,
patience, fidelity, fortitude; as the companion of those who
imitate His example in the tribulations which inevitably
come on all the good in this evil world; as their fellow-
combatant in the warfare of life, their military comrade, so
to speak; as the leader of faithful souls, and guide of all
that travel to the sky, teaching them to despise and tri-
umph over all the troubles of life, making them willing to
bear a cross v/hich has been borne before by their Master,
and inspiring them with invincible courage by the sure and
certain hope o( everlasting life, begotten in their hearts by

' Matt. xvi. 21-28; Jer. xx. 9.

The Humiliatioji of Christ in its Official Aspect. 299

the well-authenticated fact of His own resurrection from
the dead. On this view, the death of Christ is simply an
incident in His career, a mortal yet not mortal wound
received in battle; not the real ground of forgiveness or
admission to heaven, but simply the antecedent to an event
of still more importance, the resurrection, which moves
men to live good lives, and so to commend themselves to
a God who, as a matter of course, forgives all who repent
and indulgently accepts an imperfectly yet substantially
good life, as if it were perfect. Not that the sufferings of
Christ are to be treated as of no moment. By no means:
it was worthy of God to make His appointed Captain of
salvation perfect through suffering. It was a signal proof
both of His love and of His wisdom. Of His love, because
in Christ, now exalted to heavenly glory, and having the
keys of the kingdom of heaven in His hands, but once a
suffering man like ourselves. He hath given us a Saviour
who, having fully experienced all the evils to which we are
liable, is able to sympathize with us and willing to succour
us. Of His wisdom, because the curriculum of suffering
through which He appointed the Saviour to pass was con-
gruous to the vocation of the latter. It is fit that a cap-
tain should have full experience of military hardships: no
one can be a good captain on any other terms. How can
He lead an army to victory and glory, who shirks the
risks of battle and the privations of the campaign } He
who would be a Joshua to the Lord's host must lead the
way in every peril. This, accordingly, our Joshua did.
He drank of the brook by the way, thirsty and weary
through the toil of the conflict. Therefore He is a good
captain, well fitted to lead the Lord's host to glory. Having
descended personally into the scene of strife, and become
Himself a combatant, and stood in the very forefront of
the battle, He draws us on to glory, honour, and immor-
tality by the inspiration of His example. With a li'ght
heart we endure hardships, and confront trials, which our ^
heroic Leader has encountered before us. Looking unto
Jesus, the author and the perfecter of faith, who for the joy
that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the
shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of

300 The Humiliation of Christ.

God, we resist unto blood, striving against sin, and so gain
admittance into the eternal kingdom.^

While readily acknowledging that important elements of
truth are contained even in this scheme of thought, we can-
not possibly regard as complete any theory of the Saviour's
work which considers Him simply as the Apostle, and not
also as the HJ^h Priest, -of our confession. That the So-
cinian theory, just sketched, as good as ignores Christ's
priestly office, is manifest. It is true, indeed, that that
theory does ascribe to the Saviour a priestly function in
His state of exaltation. But what does that function
amount to .-' Simply to this, that the man Jesus, exalted
to God's right hand, and constituted a semi-Deity, has a
fellow-feeling for us, His brethren, which moves Him to
use the power conferred upon Him for our advantage. We
have in heaven an influential friend in the shape of a man,
wearing our nature, who once passed through a curriculum
of temptation and suffering similar to that appointed to
other men; who therefore is always disposed to take our
part and to succour our weakness, to view our conduct in-
dulgently, and notwithstanding many defects, to admit us
into His eternal kingdom. The priestly office is, in fact,
substantially identical with the kingly office conferred by
God on the man Jesus, that we erring sinful men might
have, in Him, one qualified by His own experience to be a
lenient judge and a sympathetic patron. That such a rep-
resentation comes short of the scriptural view of Christ's
priesthood hardly needs to be proved. To do justice to

• The above train of thought embodies the substance of the following passage
from the De Servatote of Socinus: Neque enim parum refert, nos, qui Christo
fidem habemus, et ejus praeceptis obedimus, scire, cum ipsum, qui vindicem et
assertorum nostrum se constituit, potestatem habere ea bona omnia nobis largiendi
quae sibi obedientibus ita constanter promisit. Praesertim cum eam viam ipse
prior ingressus, quam nos tenere jussit, omnia mala expertus sit quae nobis, dum
per eam gradimur, et ilium sequimur, aut eveniunt, aut certe evenire possunt; adeo
lit tanquam nostri mali non ignarus misereri nostrum vere possit, et nobis miseris
succurrere didicerit. . . . O admirabilem Dei bonitatem atque sapientiam ! Non
satis illi fuit nos hostes suos, ac desertores, scelerum nostrorum gratuita venia, et
vitae aeternae amplissimo promisso ad se iterum recipere, atque convertere; nisi
etiam ipsius vitae aeternae nobis largiendae potestatem fratri nostro, et tantae
salutis duci ac principi a se constitute, quern per afflictiones perfectum reddidit,
plenissimam concederet. — Pars prima, cap, vi.

The Htimiliatioii of Christ in its Official Aspect. 301

that aspect of His work as the Captain of salvation, we
must consider Him as the High Priest of our confession,
not merely in His state of exaltation, but also in His state
of humiliation; not only in the vague sentimental sense of
being our sympathetic Brother on high, who presents His
earthly experience as a plea why He should be allowed to
exercise a partial and indulgent sway over such as consent
to be His subjects, but in the strict, definite, substantial
sense of being our representative before God, and offering
gifts and sacrifices for our sins.

2. Proceeding then to consider Christ as the High Priest
of our confession, that we may see what humiliation He
had to endure in that capacity, I remark, that we place
ourselves in the best position for understanding this part
of our subject, by starting from the principle enunciated by
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in these words:
" Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are
all of one." The Captain of salvation is here call the Sanc-
tifier, with special if not exclusive reference to His priestly
office. It is not necessary to deny that the title might
legitimately enough be applied to Christ, as Grotius held
it to be, in fact, applied here, with reference to His moral
power over men through His teaching and example. Nor
can we deny that, when the title is understood in that sense,
the principle laid down contains an obvious and important
truth. One who is to be a sanctifier in the ethical sense —
that is, who is to make the unholy personally holy — must
be one in some respects with those whom he is to sanctify.
The very separateness in character, between the parties,
makes it necessary that in some sense they should be one.
There must be a point of contact somewhere, else the one
cannot act on the other; and it is evident that the more
points of contact the better. The liker the sanctifier is to
those whom he is to sanctify, and who are morally his un-
like, the greater his influence for good upon them. He who
is in all possible respects like unto his brethren, will mani-
festly have more power over them than one who is like them
in only one or two points. The one acts like a mighty
force brought to bear directly on an inert mass, so as to set
it in motion; the other glides past, just grazing the mass

302 The Humiliation of Christ.

and leaving it where it was. Hence, in order to be a sanc-
tifier even in a moral sense, it behoved Jesus, the holy
One, to be in all possible respects like His unholy brethren;
for in this sense the sanctifying power of Jesus lies in His
example. His character, His history as a man. He makes
us holy by reproducing in His own life the lost ideal of hu-
man character, and bringing that ideal to bear on our
minds and hearts. But the ideal can be brought to bear
with full effect only when it is realized amid circumstances
as like as possible to those in which t]>ey are situated whom
it is designed to influence. The Idtal must be an ideal
mariy bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, the Son of man;
He must be in His humanity mere man, stripped of all social
advantages, down on the level of the common mass, and
presenting there the ideal of excellence amid the meanest
surroundings; He must be a tempted m.d.n, His virtue not a
thing of course, but a real battle with sin, a triumph after
a bloody struggle over all the forces of moral evil.

While all this may be true, however, it is not the line of
thought which the writer of the Epistle means to suggest,
when he enunciates the principle, that the Sanctifier and
the sanctified are all of one. He calls Christ the Sancti-
fier, with reference to His office as the High Priest; and
the work he ascribes to Him, is that of sanctifying the un-
holy representatively, so that on account of what He does
they are esteemed holy in God's sight. He explains his
own meaning further on, when he speaks of Christians as
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all, and calls the blood of Christ the blood of the
covenant wherewith we are sanctified, and represents Jesus
as suffering without the gate, that He might sanctify the
people with His own blood.^ In the immediately follow-
ing context, indeed, he indicates with sufficient clearness
the nature of the service rendered by the Sanctifier, by the
significant expression, "to make reconciliation for (to ex-
piate) the sins of the people." But here, it is worthy of
notice, the author applies his principle not only to the work
of the Sanctifier, but to His qualifications for the work.
"Wherefore," he writes, "in all things it behoved Him to

' Heb, X, lo, 29, xiii, 12.

The Humiliation of Christ i7i its Official Aspect. 303

be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merci-
ful and trustworthy High Priest in things pertaining to
God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." *
He means to say, on the one hand, that the nature of the
work to be done by the High Priest in itself involves a unity
between Him and those for whom He acts; and on the
other, that the closer the union between the High Priest
and His constituents, the better fitted is He for His office.

There are thus suggested two points of view from which
we may regard the humiliation of Christ, in connection with
His priestly office, — viz. either as a discipline by which He
was qualified for office, or as suffering endured in the per-
formance of priestly duty. The latter aspect is by far the
most important; but before treating of it, it may be well to
contemplate the subject for a moment under the former
aspect.

One who is to act for men in things pertaining to God —
in so supremely important a matter as that of making atone-
ment for sin — must possess the confidence of his constit-
uents. If he is not trusted, it is in vain that he transacts.
Hence the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is careful
to point out the qualities by which a high priest is enabled
to gain the confidence of those he represents in holy things.
The model high priest is photographed, in a single expres-
sive phrase, as one able t-iExpioitcSEiv^ — to have compassion
on the ignorant and erring, able to restrain the tendency
to impatience and severity towards the morally weak. This
faculty He is represented as acquiring through His own
experience and consciousness of infirmity, which makes it
necessary that, in offering for the people. He should at the
same time offer for Himself. The purpose of the represen-
tation is to explain to the Hebrew Christians the rationale
of Christ's humiliations, of the temptations and the sinless
infirmities He experienced in the days of His flesh. He
says to them in effect: " View Christ as a High Priest, and
you will at once perceive the congruity of His experience
to His office, and cease to find in the former a stumbling-
block. You know what sort of a man every well-qualified
nigh priest is. Taken from among men, to act for them in
» Heb. ii. 17. * Heb. v. 2.

304 ■ The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

holy things, he feels himself one of the people ; accounts even
the erring and the ignorant, for whom atonement has to
be made, as his brethren; is patient and sympathetic
towards them, and checks all tendencies to impatience by
the habitual recollection of his own weakness, which his
very priestly duties do not suffer him to forget. Such an
High Priest it behoved Jesus to be as far as was possible,
without sin. Therefore He was made in all things like Hib
brethren: first of all, like them in possessing their humanity,
for He could not be a High Priest for men .unless He were
taken /rciw men; then, like them, further, in possessing the
sinless infirmities of humanity, and in being through these
subject to temptations, which made Him ofttimes feel and
confess His weakness. Why stumble at all this .-' why
wonder that the Son of God should become man; that He
should be a humble-born man, one of the people; that
He should be a tempted man; that He should be conscious
of weakness, and constrained to acknowledge it, as when
He prayed, " If it be possible, let this cup pass from me".'*
All this was needful for one destined to a priestly vocation;
all this was but a discipline fitting the Captain of salvation
for being a merciful and trusty High Priest, in whose fidelity
all can put implicit confidence."

It thus appears that we have scriptural sanction for treat-
ing the syvipatJiy of Christ as one point of view from which
to contemplate His humiliation. It is legitimate to say
that Christ's experience on earth was due, in part at least,
to this, that it behoved one who had His work to do to
undergo a training in sympathy, or to have a history which
afforded opportunities for the manifestation of sympathy
already existing. The High Priest of humanity must learn
to sympathize; or if He do not need to learn. He must
reveal His latent sympathy in action and suffering. In
this way we may satisfactorily enough explain to ourselves
some outstanding facts in our Saviour's life — as, for example,
His preference for, and habitual use of, the designation
Son of man, and His ministry of healing. Many an expla-
nation of the name Jesus was wont to give Himself has
been suggested; but it seems as good as any to say that
He called Himself by preference the Son of man, to an-

The Humiliation of Clwist in its Official Aspect. 3o5

nounce to the world His consciousness of brotherhood with
men, the humble, homely title rising to His lips as the
spontaneous utterance of the human sympathy that filled
His heart.^ Then, if we ask ourselves why it was that
Jesus, who came to save His people from their sins, spent
so much of His time in healing the bodies of the sick, how
natural the suggestion that the miracles of healing were
partly the artless expression by kind deeds of unutterable
compassion, and partly a method of action deliberately
resolved on with intent to gain men's confidence for higher
ends ! Is not the former part of the suggestion, at least,
borne out by those words of the evangelist, in which the
miraculous cures wrought by Jesus are represented as a
fulfilment of the prophetic oracle: " Himself took our in-
firmities, and bare our sicknesses " ? — the thought intended
to be conveyed obviously being: He bore man's sicknesses
on His mind by compassion, and so He healed them by
His divine power.

Thus far we may safely go in treating sympathy as one
factor in the process whereby the Lord Jesus was made a
man of sorrow, acquainted with grief But some, not con-
tent with the recognition of sympathy as one factor, make
it all in all. The one fact, according to such, necessary to
account for Christ's whole earthly experience is, that He
loved the sinful and the miserable with a love sympathetic,
burden-bearing, vicarious in character, as it is the nature
of all true love to be. This sympathy of the Son of God
with man is the cardinal unity which binds together Sanc-
tifier and sanctified, — a unity fruitful of many others, and
sufficiently accounting for all. Because the holy One was
one with the unholy, in the first place, through a sym-
pathetic love whose nature it is to identify itself in all
respects with the object loved, therefore He was not only
willing, but eager — nay, under a kind of necessity — to come
into their lot. Sympathetic love brought Him down from
heaven to earth; and given proximity of situation, fellow-
ship in suffering followed as a matter of course. The holy
One incarnate became, of course, in lot like the unholy, in
all respects possible to a holy being. There is no mystery
' For the sense of this title, see Lect, v. p. 226.

30 6 The Humiliation of Christ.

in the matter: " Understand that love is itself an essentially
vicarious principle, and the solution is no longer difficult." *
Who wonders that a mother suffers with and for her sick
child ? or a patriot with and for his unhappy country ?
Who wonders that Nehemiah. being a patriot, left the
court of Persia and came to Jerusalem when its walls were
lying in ruins ? and that, once at the scene of desolation
and misery, he became partaker in the afflictions of the
people, their fellow-labourer in rebuilding the ruined walls
— watching when they watched, fighting when they fought,
tempted by treacherous foes when they were tempted, pay-
ing their debts and redeeming them from bondage, when
they were burdened with debt and sold into slavery ? The
explanation of the whole is, that Nehemiah loved his
country with a love which was essentially vicarious, just
because it was genuine. In like manner, why wonder that
the Son of God visited this dark, sinful, wretched world by
becoming man, and that, once arrived here. He experienced
all the sinless infirmities of human nature, the privations
and indignities of a mean outward condition, temptation,
bad usage, the fear of death, and death itself, " even the
death of the cross " .'' The cardinal unity of sympathy ex-
plains all these resultant unities of lot. And as for the
cardinal unity itself, it needs no explanation. What need
to explain the fact of the holy One loving the unholy with
a sympathetic love, which makes Him and them as one .-*
Such love is the law of the moral universe — for God, for
angels, for good men. The unity subsisting between
Sanctifier and sanctified, therefore, depends not on any
positive divine institution, or on any office to which the
former is appointed. Christ's unity with the sinful is ante-
cedent to, independent of, constitutions and offices, and is
due simply to His being what He is — One whose inmost
nature is holy love. For, to quote the words of the most
eloquent modern expounder of the theory: " Such is love,
that it must insert itself into the conditions, burden itself
with the wants and woes and losses, and even wrongs, of
others. It waits for no atoning office, or any other kind of
office. It undertakes because it is love, not because a pro-

» Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. ii.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 307

ject IS raised or an office appointed. It goes into suffering
and labour and painful sympathy, because its own ever-
lasting instinct runs that way. There can be no greater
mistake, in this view, than to imagine that Christ has the
matter of vicarious sacrifice wholly to Himself, because He
sutfers officially, or as having undertaken it for His office to
supply so much suffering. He suffered simply what was in-
cidental to His love, and the works to which love prompted,
just as any missionary suffers what belongs to the work of
love he is in." ^

To one holding such views it would not be an effective
reply to point out, that the sympathetic love ascribed to
Christ does not of itself constitute priestly action in the
strict sense of the word, but simply amounts to a personal
qualification for the office; because the offices of Christ are
ostentatiously held in light esteem, and in particular the
priestly office is regarded as a mere figure of speech. The
advocates of the theory which accounts for Christ's whole
state of humiliation by sympathy, explain the prominence
given to the priestly aspect of His work in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, as an accommodation to Jewish modes of
thinking adopted for apologetic purposes. The writer
believed that he could commend Christianity to his readers,
by presenting the object of faith to their view under a
priestly aspect; and therefore he ran a parallel between
Christ and the Aaronic high priests, straining the similitude
to an extent justified by the paraenetic aim, but which it
would be a stupid mistake in us to take too much in
earnest. The argument is rhetoric rather than theology;
and Christ is called a priest by poetic licence rather than in
plain prose. In point of fact, He does nothing in the way
of making atonement for men before God; His action is all
manward, and its sole design and effect is to gain moral
power over the sinful through the manifestation of divine
love in self-sacrifice; so, as it is put by the author already
quoted, " at the expense of great suffering, and even of
death itself, to bring us out of our sins themselves, and so
out of their penalties." ^ To one whose mind has slowly

I Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 67, 68 (English Edition, 1871).
* The Vicarious Sacrifice, chap. i. p. 7.

3o8 The Humiliation of Christ.

passed through various phases of opinion on the present
weighty subject, and who certainly has not been insensible
to the fascinations of the sympathy-theory of redemption
advocated by Bushnell, it may be permitted to remark,
that such a summary and unceremonious method of hand-
ling the important category of our Lord's priesthood, does
not commend itself to a sober and reverent judgment.
Unless we are to treat the Epistle to the Hebrews as a
portion of Scripture possessing no permanent value to the
Church, as a source of instruction in Christian truth, — as
being, indeed, nothing more than an ingenious piece of
reasoning, serving admirably the temporary purpose of carry-
ing Hebrew Christians safely through a crisis in their spir-
itual history, — we must regard Christ's priesthood as a
great reality, as tJic reality, whereof the legal priesthood
was but a rude shadow, not even an exact image. If so,
then this Man must have something to offer to God for us;
and His offering must possess all the properties needful to
efficacy — must be the absolutely perfect, and therefore
eternally valid sacrifice for sin, perfecting the worshipper
as to conscience — that is, delivering him completely from
the painful sense of guilt, making him in God's sight holy,
and establishing between him and God a relation of peace
and fellowship upon which sin exercises no disturbing in-
fluence. And because Christ as a priest offers an ideally
perfect sacrifice, valid for and having effect upon God in
His relation to men, therefore His priesthood must be a
matter of divine appointment. Were it a mere affair of
gaining moral power over men by a career of self-sacrificing
love, then nothing more would be needed to constitute
sanctifier and sanctified one, than sympathetic feeling, and
every one might take up the vocation of a saviour who had
a mind. But if the sanctifier is to act not only on men
but for men, and to prevail with God to certain intents and
purposes, then sympathy alone will not suffice to form a
nexus between him and the unholy. There must be a
divine appointment to the priestly office. No man taketh
this honour to himself but he that is called of God. Sym-
pathy may be a very important qiialificatio7i for office. It
is so indeed. No one could do Christ's work Vv'ho was merely

The Hicmiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 309

an " official " performing all his duties in a perfunctory-
spirit; and this is a truth which, by way of antidote to the
chilling effect of a scholastic method of discussing the
Saviour's offices, may very properly and profitably be in-
sisted on by such as have been led to feel strongly about
it. The very antipodes of officialism did the Christ behove
to be, even one possessed with a very passion for saving
the sinful, and in the intensity of His love ready to descend
to the lowest depths, to put His shoulder beneath the
heaviest burdens, and to feel the keenest pangs in His
vocation as Saviour, yea, feeling such pangs just because He
loved. This was needful as a qualification for office, not
only with a view to gain the confidence of men, but, as will
appear, equally with a view to satisfy Him from whom the
appointment to office emanated. Still it was nothing more
than a qualification. It neither superseded the necessity
of an appointment, nor did it amount to a full discharge of
offixial duty.

Passing, then, from the qualifications for the priestly office
to the office itself, I remark that the principle of identity,
in this connection, means, not that the sanctifier and the
sanctified are, or are required to be, one in all circumstances
conditioning moral power, or one in all particulars of lot as
the result of spontaneous sympathy; but that the two parties
are so one in God's sight and by His appointment, that what
the Sanctifier does in His official capacity, He does repre-
sentatively in the name of those He represents, and for
their behoof, so that in Him, and in virtue of His transac-
tions, they are in the divine view sanctified, holy. In such
a relation the high priest of Israel stood to the people. On
the great day of atonement he offered sacrifice, in the
name and as the representative of the people; and the result
of his representative action was, that Israel was cleansed
from all sin, and was in God's sight holy. In the same re-
lation Christ stands to the spiritual Israel. He is the
representative of the people, and in Him God regards as
sanctified those who are in themselves unholy. But this
is not the whole truth. The High Priest of our confession
is not only a Priest, but a victim. He put av/ay sin by
the sacrifice oi Himself . Hence, while as a Priest He is our

3IO Tlie Hitmiliation of Christ.

repref-entative, as a sacrifice He is our substitute. For as,
in the law, the sins of the people were laid on the head of
the victim, and expiated by the shedding of its blood; so
Christ bore our sins in His own body, and died on the
cross, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us
to God.

It was chiefly in the capacity of a victim that Christ
encountered humiliation, in the exercise of the office of a
Priest. In itself the priestly office involved no humiliation;
on the contrary, to be the sacerdotal representative of the
people was a great honour, so great that no man might
take it unto himself, but he that was called of God, as was
Aaron. It is true, indeed, that the nature of the office, as
having to do with sin, and all its duties, as in one way or
another calling sin to remembrance, required the sacer-
dotal representative of the congregation to be a man hum-
ling himself habitually before the Lord for the sins of his
brethren, not to speak of his own. But while the priest who
offered sacrifices for sin, and the victim sacrificed, remained
distinct, the lowest depth of humiliation could not be
reached. It was reserved for Him in whom the ideals of
priesthood and of sacrifice were both united and perfectly
realized, to prove by experience the humiliating power of
sin in the superlative degree. As the sacrifice for sin,
Christ endured the humiliation of becoming a sinner in
legal standing, made sin for us that we might be made the
righteousness of God; made like unto the unholy in respects
in which it was barely possible for a holy Being to be assim-
ilated to such, even in subjection to the curse, to the
wrath of God, to death as the penalty of sin, that we might
be delivered from these evils.

This statement, however, is not homologated by all who
agree in holding the principle, that the Sanctifier and those
who are sanctified are one, in the sense that the former
represents the latter before God. Many, while admitting
Christ to be the representative of sinners, deny that He is
their substitute. The denial implies, for one thing, that no
independent substantive value is attached to Christ's death,
it being regarded simply as the crowning act of obedience
and devotion to the divine will. It further implies that

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 311

the priestly action of Christ always includes Himself as an
object. The Sanctifier sanctifies Himself as well as the
community; sanctifies the community by sanctifying Him-
self. This is the idea underlying that view of Christ's
redeeming- work, which has been more than once referred
to in these lectures, as the theory of redemption by sample,
but'which is more commonly known as the mystical theory,
the title adopted by Schleiermacher to distinguish his own
view of the doctrine from the orthodox, which he called
the " magical," on the one hand, and from the Socinian,
termed the " empirical," on the other.* Common to all
forms of this so-called mystical theory is the position, that
what Christ did for men He did also for Himself, and that
He did it for us by doing it for Himself, acting as the Head
and representative of humanity before God. The High
Priest of humanity sanctified Himself for the sake of hu-
manity, and in so doing presented the whole lump holy to
the Lord. The point on which the advocates of this theory
are not agreed is the question. Wherein did Christ's self-
sanctification consist ? The ancient Fathers, many of whom
held this theory, in addition to their grotesque fancy, that
the death of Christ was a price paid to the devil, for the ran-
som of men's souls from his dominion, sometimes identified
the sanctification of humanity in Christ's person with the In-
carnation. Thus Hilary: " For the sake of the human race
the Son of God was born of the Virgin, and by the Holy
Ghost, that being made man He might receive the nature
of the flesh unto Himself, and that, by the admixture, the
body of the whole human race might be sanctified in Him;
so that as all were included in Him through His will to be
corporeal, He might in turn enter into all through His in-
visible part."^ Stress v/as sometimes, however, laid on the
holy life of Christ in human nature; as in a passage quoted
from Cyril in a previous lecture, where Christ is spoken of
as destroying sin in humanity, by living a human life free

' Dtr christliche Glaube, ii. 99-101.

2 De Trinitate, 1. ii. c. 24: Humani generis causa Dei filiiis natus ex virgine
est et Spirito sancto . . . ut homo factus ex virgine naturam m se carnis acciperet,
perque hiijus admixtionis societatem sanctificatum in eo universi generis humani
corpus exsisteret: ut quemadmodum omnes in se per id quod corporeum se esse
voluit conderentur, ita rursum in omnes ipse per id quod ejus est invisibile referretur.

312 The Humiliation of Christ.

from all sin, rendering the soul He assumed superior to
sin, by dyeing it with the moral strength and unchange-
ableness of His own divine nature.' In the theory of Men-
ken and Irving, in principle the same with that taught by
the Fathers, the Sanctifier makes the lump of humanity
holy, by taking a portion of the corrupt mass tainted with
the vice of original sin and subject to sinful bias, and by a
desperate life-long struggle sanctifying it, subduing all
temptations to sin arising out of its evil proclivities, and at
last consuming the body of death as a sin-offering on the
cross. In the patristic form of the theory the sample was
of better quality than the lump; in the Menken-Irving
theory the sample was, morally as well as metaphysically,
just a fair sample of the lump, and was only made better
by a painful process of self-mortification. In the hands of
Maurice, the mystical theory assumes a kindred but some-
what modified form. Christ, as the root and archetype of
humanity, in His own person offers up man as an acceptable
sacrifice to God, in the sense of exhibiting in His life and
death the entire surrender of the whole spirit and body to
God, and the complete renunciation of that self-will which
is the cause of all men's crimes and of all their misery.
Such self-sacrifice was what was really meant by all the
legal sacrifices: for the victims died, not as substitutes for
the offerer, but as symbols of his devotion. What these legal
sacrifices but dimly foreshadowed, Christ perfectly realized.
In His life and death He offered up the one complete sac-
rifice ever offered, the perfect example of self-surrender and
devotion to the divine will; and God accepted the sacri-
fice, as made not by an individual, but by the race as rep-
resented by its archetypal man.^

It is impossible within the compass of a single lecture,
and indeed it is quite unnecessary, to follow out into fur-
ther detail the exposition of this type of doctrine. It must
suffice to say, that since the time of Schleiermacher, what
he called the " mystical" theory in contradistinction to the
" magical," but what, imitating his epigrammatic style, I
prefer to call the theory of redemption by sample, as op-

1 Vid. Lecture ii. p. 47.

2 Vid. The Doctrine of Sacrifice, and Theological Essays.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 3 1 3

posed to redemption by substitute, bas been much in favour
among- German theologians/ And by way of criticism of
this in some respects most attractive theory, I offer only two
observations. The first is, that advocates of the doctrine
of substitution, and of the correlate doctrine of imputa-
tion, are nowise concerned to meet with unqualified denial
the underlying postulate of the theory — viz., that whatever
Christ did for us He did for Himself, or that His priestly
action was inclusive, not exclusive, of Himself. To a cer-
tain extent this is quite true. The Sanctifier was holy for
Himself as well as for us; and in so far as His death was
necessary to the maintenance in unbroken continuity and
closest intimacy, at all hazards, of His fellowship with His
Father, we may even concede to Ritschl that He died for
Himself as well as for us.^ For the same reason I admit
that Jesus prayed for Himself as well as for us; a fact which
the author just named thinks has been entirely overlooked
by the upholders of the orthodox theory.' Ritschl de-
scribes the priestly activity of Christ for us as consisting in
bringing us nigh to God; that idea, in his opinion, covering
the whole design and effect of the ancient sacrifices.*
Christ's priestly action for Himself, on the other hand, con-
sisted in maintaining His originally existing nighness to
God, in presence of circumstances tending to produce sep-
aration and alienation; His death was His last crowning
effort for that purpose. On this view it was as necessary
that Christ should die in His own interest, in His capacity
as a Priest, as it was that He should die in His capacity as
a Prophet. In the latter case. He died that He might be
faithful to Him that appointed Him, in His vocation as an
Apostle. In the former. He died that He might be faith-
ful to us as our High Priest. Dying as a Prophet, He main-
tained to the end His solidarity with God; dying as a Priest,
He maintained to the end His solidarity with men.^ All
this I am ready to accept; but in doing so, I observe that

' On the recent German literature bearing on the subject, vid. Philippi, Kirch-
liche Glaiibenslehre, vol. iv. zweite Halfte, pp. 156-204. Also Ritschl, Die christ-
liche Lehre von der Rechtfcrtigungtmd Versohnimg dargestellt, vol. i. pp. 465-520.

' Die christ liche Lehre von der Rechtfertigitng tend Versohnimg, vol. iii. p. 414.

3 Ibid. iii. p. 412. 4 Ji,id. U. p. 210. » Ibid. iii. p. 490.

3^4 ^'^ Humiliation of Christ.

Christ did not die for flimself, or, to put it more generally,
maintain His fellowship with God, even unto death, for
Himself, in the same sense as for us. As a Priest, actincr
in His own interest, He simply ensured that He should
continue what He rvas — Jioly. As a Priest, acting for us,
He ensured, by His holiness in life and death, that we, the
unholy, should be holy in God's sight — " accepted in the
Beloved." What is this but to sanctify, or, to use the more
correct expression in this connection, to justify the unholy
by imputation ? It is true, indeed, that Ritschl rejects the
doctrine of justification by imputation of Christ's i^ighteoiis-
ness, and in its place substitutes justification by imputation
oi fellowship with Christ, proposing as the appropriate for-
mula the following: " God imputes to the members of
the community of Christ, their fellowship with Christ, as
the condition under which He admits them to fellowship
with Himself."^ This formula certainly seems to convey
the idea that, after all, it is not the perfect righteousness
of the Sanctifier which forms the ground why God accepts
as righteous the unholy, but rather the incipient righteous-
ness of those who are justified, manifested in their volun-
tary fellowship with Christ. But in that case what be-
comes of the author's doctrine, that justification is a " syn-
thetic judgment," that is, a gracious act of the divine will
affirming of the subject that which is not contained in the
idea of it; as thus, "The sinner is to God righteous; he is
adopted by God; he is brought nigh to God " } ^ This doc-
trine, taken along with the above formula, would seem to
imply that God justifies the sinner, pardoning his sin and
accepting him as righteous in His sight, not for any incipi-
ent goodness in himself, but for the righteousness of Christ,
imputed to him and received by faith. But it must be
confessed that this inference, however legitimate, does not
seem to be accepted by Ritschl. In explaining, with a
view to illustrate his doctrine of justification, those passages

' Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und VersOknung, iii. p. 482:
Gott den Gliedern der Genieinde Christi ihre Gemeinschaft mit Christus als die
Bedingung anrechnet, unter der er sie zur Gemeinschaft mit sich selbst zulasst.

2 Ibid. iii. 466: Der Siindqr ist Gott recht, er ist Gott angeeignet, er ist in die
Js'iihe Gottes versetzt.

TJie Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 310

of Scripture in which God is represented as forgiving sin,
out of regard to the intercession or the righteousness of
good men like Moses or David, he gives the matter this
turn: "In the recognition of an intercession as a ground
of forgiveness, no judgment contrary to truth is pronounced;
but a resolution of confidence is formed out of regard to the
probability that one who is deemed worthy of the fellow-
ship of an honourable man, is worthy also to be received
again into the fellowship of the party injured. In like
manner is the righteousness of David represented as a
motive of divine forgiveness; because the Israelites, in spite
of their disobedience, have the honour to possess in David
a representative whose fellowship with them awakens the
conjecture that they are not incapacitated for obeying God." '
Far-fetched, forced explanations, indeed, indicating a very
decided reluctance to recognise the goodness of one man,
as the real ground of gracious judgments and actions, on
God's part, towards others.

These remarks lead us naturally to the second observation
which I have to offer, by way of criticism, on the mystical
theory of redemption. It is chargeable with the vice of
ambiguity, inasmuch as it does not clearly indicate in what
way Christ's action avails for us. Does the sample really
sanctify the whole lump in God's sight .■' or does it merely
exhibit a result which has to be reached in every individual
member of the race, which it somehow helps us to reach,
and which, when realized, or foreseen as realized, is the
ground of God's judgment in accepting us as holy .'' The
theory stated in general terms leaves these points inde-
terminate; it is compatible with either alternative; and
according as it inclines to the one side or the other, it goes

' Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigting nnd Versdhnung, iii. P. 58: In
der Anerkennung einer Fiirbitte zum Zwecke der Veizeihung wird also kein walir-
heitswidriges Urtheil gefallt, sondernein Entschluss des Vertrauens ausgeiibt durch
Vermittelung eines Urtheils der Wahrsclieinlichkeit, dass derjenige, welcher von
einem ehrenhaften Manne der Gemeinschaft gewUrdigt wird, werth ist, auch von
dem Beleidigten zur Gemeinschaft wieder angenommen zu werden. Demgemass
wird auch die Gerechtigkeit Davids als Motiv der gOttlichen Verzeihung vorge-
stellt, well die Israeliten trotz ihres Ungehorsams die Ehre haben, an David cinen
Reprasentanten zu besitzen, dessen Gemeinschaft mit ihnen die Vermuthimg er-
weckt, dass sie zum Gehorsam gegen Gott befahigt sind.

3i6 The Humiliation of Christ.

over either to the side of orthodoxy or to the side of So-
cinianism. The mystical scheme is distinct from other
forms of doctrine, only so long as it deals in general impos-
ing phrases, and refuses to be explicit. Whenever it con-
descends to explain itself, it is seen to be identical either
with what Schleiermacher was pleased to call the magical
view, or what the same author stigmatized as the empirical
view. In point of fact, the tendency of the mystical school
has been for the most part towards the latter; that is to
say, their doctrine of atonement turns out to be simply a
form of the moral influence theory. This is particularly
true in reference to Schleiermacher. When we find him
saying that, " as of the whole Jewish people the high priest
alone appeared before God, and God, as it were, saw the
whole people in him; so Christ is on this account our High
Priest, because God sees us not every one for himself, but
only in Him,"* — we are ready to come to the conclusion,
that here we have God accepting the unholy, on account
of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. But, read-
ing on, we find that the doctrine, that Christ's obedience
is our righteousness, or that His righteousness is imputed to
us, means, for Schleiermacher, that " Christ as our High
Priest represents us perfectly before God in virtue of His
own complete fulfilment of the divine will, to which, through
His life in us, the impulse is active in us also; so that, in
this connection with Him, we too are objects of the divine
complacency." " That is, Christ in us, not Christ for us, is
the ground of justification. Christ, the founder of the
divine kingdom, has introduced a new principle of life into
the community called by His name. This principle, or, in
other words, the life image of Christ, works like a leaven
in the mass, gradually assimilating the members to the
great Exemplar and Head. Because of this process of
assimilation going on in those who are connected with
Christ by a fellowship of life, God is well pleased with
them, notwithstanding existing imperfection. Redemption
is thus purely subjective; fellowship of life with Christ in
His holiness and in His blessedness is the whole outcome

' D^r christliche Glaube, ii. p. 133.
2 Ibid. ii. p. 133.

The Hiimiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 317

of His work; ^ and as in Schleiermacher's system this fellow-
ship is not immediate, but only through the medium of the
Church, direct personal fellowship with the Saviour being
branded as magical, the redemptive influence emanating
from the founder of the Christian religion reduces itself
to the influence of a society, in which more or less clear
ideas prevail, of that founder's teaching, spirit, and history.
That is to say, as Baur has pointed out," Schleiermacher's
mystic conception of redemption and reconciliation passes
over into that which he named the empirical, which wholly
excludes the supernatural, and makes men's salvation sim-
ply the natural result of doctrine and example acting on
their minds, by way of moral influence. The same thing,
however, it is cordially admitted, cannot be said of all who,
more or less, share the Schleiermacherian point of view.
Theologians like Nitzsch ^ not only recognise a direct
personal fellowship with Christ, but teach a Christ for us
as well as a Christ in us, and acknowledge that the work
of redemption has an objective, Godward side, as well as a
subjective. And when this is done, there need be no
jealousy of the mystic theory. For redemption by sample
can be combined with redemption by substitute. The doc-
trine of a Christ in us and that of a Christ for us are not \j
only compatible, but complementary of each other; either
is but a half truth without the other. The two points of
view, the mystic and the legal, are both recognised in
Scripture; they are found meeting together amicably within
a few verses of each other in a well-known chapter of one
of Paul's Epistles. When, speaking in the name of Chris-
tians, the apostle says, " We thus judge: if one died for all,
then all died," he presents to view the mystic aspect of the
truth, the death of Christ being here regarded as a sample
of what has to be realized in each individual believer, and
is realized in him, in proportion as he lives not to himself,

' Schleiermacher divides the woi% of Christ into two parts, distinguished respec-
tively as the redeeming and the atoning activity. The redeeming activity consists
in taking sinners into fellowship in His holiness; the atoning, in taking them ir.ta
fellowship in His blessedness. Vid. christliche Glaube, ii. pp. 94, 102.

' Die christliche Lehre von der VersShnung, p. 619.

3 System der christlichen Lehre, pp. 279-283, 6te Auflage.

3i8 The Humiliation of Christ.

but to Him that died and rose again. He presents the
same subject on the legal side, when, at the close of the
same chapter, addressing men whom he urges to be recon-
ciled to God, he writes, " For He hath made Him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the right-
eousness of God in Him;" the death of Christ being viewed
here as an event which takes place in order that we might
not die, but be justified in God's sight, ^ — in other words, as
the penalty of our sin inflicted on Christ as our substitute
or vicar. ^

But can such a transference of legal responsibility as
seems to be taught in this text really have taken place ?
Is such a transference possible .'' Is it worthy of the great
Sovereign of the universe, the First Cause and Last End
of all .'' Is it in accordance with the facts of Christ's his-
tory .'' These are the questions to which we must now turn.
Now, as to the first, it scarcely needs to be remarked, that
what is af^rmed by the Catholic doctrine is not transference
of guilt or moral turpitude, but simply of legal liability.
Christ was made sin for us, simply to the extent and effect
of bearing penalty for our sin. Some prominent defenders
of the Catholic doctrine have indeed hesitated to go even
so far as this. Archbishop Magee, e. g., in his well-known
work on the atonement, maintains that the idea of punish-
ment in the strict sense cannot be abstracted from that of
guilt; and, while admitting that Christ's sufferings were
judicially inflicted, he holds that they can be called the
punishment of our sins, only in the sense that they were
the sufferings due to us the offenders, and which, if inflicted
on the actual offenders, would then take properly the
name of punishment.^ A more recent writer, the Donellan
lecturer for the year 1857, in a work on the atonement,
which has for its praiseworthy aim to exhibit the Catholic
doctrine cleared of such careless expressions and imperfect
definitions as tend to awaken hostility or furnish a handle
for scepticism, endorses the distinguished prelate's view,
and says, "that we must, when we speak of the penal suf-

1 2 Cor. V. 15, 21, ^ See Appendix, Note A.

3 Discourses and Dissertatio7is on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and
Sacrifice, Dissert. No. 42, p. 457 (4th ed.).

The Humiliatioit of Christ in its Official Aspect. 3 1 9

ferings of Christ, admit that we use the word ' penal ' in a
peculiar sense, as expressing the relation of those sufferings
not to Him who bore them, but to our demerits, in which
they originated." ^ Such scruples are entitled to respect,
yet there is truth in the remark of another theologian, that,
in conceding the judicial character of Christ's sufferings,
these writers admit all that is intended to be taught when
the epithet " penal " is applied to them.^ The vital ques-
tion is, Can these sufferings be rightly regarded as judicial
in their nature ? Now, looking at this question from our
peculiar point of view, that of Christ's voluntary humilia-
tion, I remark, that if descent into the legal standing of a
sinner were at all possible, Christ would gladly make the
descent. It v/as His mind, His bent. His mood, if I may
so speak, to go down till He had reached the utmost limits
of possibility. So minded. He would be predisposed to
find the imputation of men's sin to Himself, to the intent
of His bearing their penalty within these limits. By an
antecedent act of subjective self-imputation. He would, so
to say, prejudge the question in favour of the possibility of
an objective imputation. What the moral government of
God is supposed to forbid, the sympathy of the Son of man
would be prone to ordain as a law for itself. The truth of
this observation is tacitly acknowledged by the peculiar
theory of atonement taught by the late Dr. M'Leod Camp-
bell; the sole value of that theory, indeed, lies in the fact
that it involves such an acknowledgment. That writer,
repudiating the orthodox doctrine of imputation as a theo-
logical figment, and improving a hint thrown out by Presi-
dent Edwards respecting an alternative method of satisfying
for sin, namely, by an adequate confession of sin, — a hint
which he might have got from a schoolman of the twelfth

' MacDonnel, The Doctrine of the Atonement deduced from Scripture, Lect.
vi. p. 198. It is well known that Anselm, who first formulated the theory of satis-
faction, did not regard Christ's death as penal. Satisfaction in his system did not
consist in paying the penalty, but was rather one of two alternatives, the other
b»?ing the paying of the penalty. Thus he says, in Cur Deus Ho?Jio, i. c. 15:
" Nxesse est, ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena sequatur." See Baur, Ver-
sOhnungslehre, p. 183. If the disuse of a word would reconcile thoughtful men
to the truth intended to be conveyed, one might easily forego it.

* Professor Crawford, On the Atonement, p. 184.

320 The Humiliation of Christ.

century,' — propoiinds the doctrine that Christ, bearing- us
and our sins on His heart before the Father, made a perfect
confession of human sin: a confession which "was a perfect
Amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of
man; " " a confession due in the truth of things, due on our
behalf though we could not render it, due from Him as in
our nature and our true Brother, what He must needs feel
in Himself because of the holiness and love which were iri
Him, what He must needs utter to the Father in expiation
of our sins when He would make intercession for us; " a
confession which had in it " all the elements of a perfect
contrition and repentance, excepting the personal con-
sciousness of sin." ' The theory has been treated by critics
of all schools as the eccentricity of a devout author, who,
dissatisfied with the traditional theory, has substituted in
its place another, involving not only greater difficulty, but
even something very like absurdity. The idea of a con-
fession made by a perfectly holy being, involving all the
elements of a perfect repentance, except the personal con-
sciousness of sin, is certainly absurd enough. It is either
the play of Hamlet without the part of Hamlet; or, if the
repentance have any real contents, then the remark of a
Transatlantic critic is most pertinent: "After having im-
plied that Christ repented of the sins of the race, we do
not see why Mr. Campbell should object to the theory that
He was punished for these sins." * Repentance is certainly
the more difficult, and more obviously " impossible" task
of the two, for a holy being to perform. But, as already
hinted, this eccentric theory has at least this much value,
that it bears testimony to the truth that, from whatever
quarter objections to the imputation of our sin to Christ
were to come, they were not likely to emanate from Christ
Himself The Saviour, according to this theory, through
His holy, loving sympathy, imputes the sins of humanity
to Himself, as sins for which a confession was due from
Him as in our nature, our true Brother. The statement
even implies an objective imputation, to the extent of

' Rupert of Duytz.

2- J. M'Leod Campbell, On the Nature of the Atonement, p. 138.

3 Professor Park, quoted in Buslxnell's Forgiveness and Law, p. 3I.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 321

demanding such a confession. For if the confession was
due to God in the very truth of things, surely God could
claim His due; and to claim His due from Christ means to
make Him responsible for the debt. In principle, the theory
differs little from the orthodox; its peculiarity lies simply
in this, that it makes the debt payable not by S7iffering
merely, but by confession. But not to insist on this, and
regarding the theory in question as denying objective im-
putation of sin to Christ, we may still say of it that it
asserts, with even extravagant emphasis, the subjective
self-imputation of sin to Himself by Christ, as a thing
inevitable to one minded as He was. And here at least it
speaks the truth, though it may be in an exaggerated form;
for, without a doubt, it was the instinctive impulse of the
Redeemer to impute to Himself the world's sin, and in the
light of such imputation, to regard the evils of His earthly
lot as a personal participation in the curse pronounced on
man for sin. It was a satisfaction to His heart to feel that,
in being born into a family whose royal lineage and mean
condition, combined, bore expressive witness to the misery
that had overtaken Israel for her sins, in being subjected
to the necessity of earning His bread by the sweat of His
brow, in being exposed to the assaults of Satan, in having
to endure the contradiction of sinners, in being nailed to
the cross, He was indeed made partaker of our curse — in
this respect, too, our Brother, and like unto His brethren.
From the same subjective point of view we may, with
Rupert of Duytz, regard Jesus, as He went from Nazareth
to the Jordan to be baptized by John, as going forth to do
penance for the sin of the world, clothed in the very habit
of a penitent. Himself the Holy of Holies, yet alone fit to
render penitence for the sins of the elect, and, as the sin-
bearer, receiving the baptism of repentance among the
penitent multitude.^ Every one who, like the Abbot of
Duytz, takes a strong hold of the great truth of Christ's
self-humiliating love, must sympathize with such a view.

We can cite, in favour of this self-imputation of sin on
the part of the Saviour, yet another witness, not a medi-
aeval, but a modern one — viz. Bushnell, author of the work

1 See Appendix, Note B.

32 2 The Htmiiliation of CJwist.

already quoted in this lecture, on The Vicarious Sacj'ifice^
This ingenious author, having ceased to be entirely satis-
fied with the views set forth in the latter portions of that
work, published a new treatise, entitled Forgiveness and
Lazu, recalling these sections of the older publication, and
substituting in their place certain new views, which had
come into his mind, he tells us, almost like a revelation.*
The new views are promulgated with as much confidence
as the old ones, as the unquestionable solution of the great
problem. The overweening confidence of the writer is in-
deed the gravest fault of the book. That a man should be
slow of heart to understand the full meaning of Christ's
death is no reproach; at least it is one which it would not
become every Christian disciple to bring against a brother.
That one who has made the great theme of redemption
his study of many years should have something to learn
and to unlearn still, is not to be wondered at; for therein
is revealed the many-sided wisdom of God, ^ and who has yet
seen all the sides .-• nay, who has not, by the very intensity
of his gaze at this or the other side, rendered himself as good
as blind to the other sides, perhaps equally important .-* But
one who claims to have got new light, and by the very
claim confesses previous partial error, ought to avoid the
oracular style, and to speak with the modesty of one
who feels he may have to confess to yet further changes
of view. Certainly, if the Catholic doctrine be true, Bush-
nell had still a good deal to learn; for he denounces that
doctrine, as he understands it, with all the old vehemence.
Still in the new work he makes an approach to the de-
nounced theory in two important directions. He here ad-
mits an objective real propitiation of God, as opposed to
a purely subjective one, as previously asserted, in which
the disciple merely objectivizes his own feelings, conceiving
that God Himself is representatively mitigated or become

1 Since these lectures were delivered, Horace Bushnell has passed to his rest;
and I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration of the man, and the great
enjoyment, intense stimulus, and frequent help I have gained from the perasal of
his writings, in which, whatever debateable opinions they may contain, sanctified
genius shines out on every page. Readers of his biography will learn thence how
well he deserves to be called an earnest seeker after truth.

2 Eph. iii. lo.

The Humiliation of Christ i^i its Official Aspect. 323

propitious, because he is himself inwardly reconciled to God.'
Instead of this, the author here asserts a real propitiation
of God, "finding it in evidence from the propitiation we
instinctively make ourselves when we heartily forgive,"^
- — having observed, that is, that men who want to forgive
thoroughly have first to overcome their own moral disgust,
by doing acts for the offender which cost them effort and
sacrifice.' The other approximation consists in asserting
that Christ was " incarnated into the curse," as a necessary
condition of His being able to raise men out of the curse
into the sphere of Christian liberty. The author represents
Christ as " consciously " suffering " the curse or penal shame
and disaster of our transgression," in all the leading crises
of His life — in the temptation, in the scene upon Mount
Olivet when He wept over Jerusalem, in the agony of
Gethsemane, and in the crucifixion. His Incarnation, we
are told, put Him in the compass of all that belongs to the
solidarity of the curse, except that He is touched by none
of its contaminations.* " Under the curse He feels as if the
condemnations of God were upon Him — as they are in all
the solidarities of the race into which He is come."^ " He
suffers all the suffering of mankind; not as we do, in mere
sympathy with the suffering itself, but as beholding it in
its guilty causes, — a suffering in which the displeasures of
God and His compassions are united, by a conjunction that
is itself the utmost possibility of suffering."" Here is a
sufficiently distinct recognition of the subjective imputation
of sin to Himself by Christ, who, according to the theory,
looks on Himself throughout life as under the curse, the
penal shame and disaster of transgression, the condemna-
tions and displeasures of God. The author seems inclined
to go even further than this, and to admit that Christ's
sufferings in these penal aspects were appointed by God,
and in some sense a divine infliction. When the prophet
says, " He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised
for our iniquities," it is not to be doubted that he conceives

1 Forgiveness and Law, p. 12. " Ibid. p. I2.

3 For illustrations, see pp. 40-48 of the work.

4 Forgiveness and Law, p. 15 1. ^ Ibid. p. 155,
« Ibid. p. 155.

324 The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

some kind of penal infliction in the suffering endured.^ The
only thing doubted is, whether "it is the penalty of our
state of discipline, or of justice itself" Bushnell stren-
uously maintains the former alternative. Conceding that
Christ's sufferings were penal, not only to His feelings,
but by God's will, he contends that they were not judicial,
but merely penal-sanction sufferings — just the inverse of
the position taken up by Archbishop Magee. He holds
that there is no such thing as judicial suffering in this
world, strict justice being reserved for the world to come.
Here men are under a scheme of "probatory discipline,"
and all the sufferings they undergo are of a disciplinary
character. The curse of the law is not the justice of God,
but simply the penal-sanction discipline we are under.*
And what is true of us is true of Christ. His suffering may
legitimately enough, perhaps, be regarded as a divine in-
fliction, but it does not follow that the infliction is judicial
penalty; for it can as well be penal-sanction suffering, as
we certainly know that all other suffering in this world is.'
" The retributive liability He is in, is indeed severe enough
to bear even a look of justice. We only happen to know
that no suffering of our own under the curse is justice, and
that He is suffering with us in our lot as it is. If we call
it penal, as I have called the disciplinary sanction arranged
for, it is not the penalty of justice."*

From this account of the latest speculations of this very
able and earnest American theologian two inferences may
fairly be drawn. One is, that what I have named the
subjective imputation of sin to Himself by Christ, will ever
appear, on due consideration, to be an essential element of
His self-humiliation. The other is, that it will be found
difficult to hold a subjective imputation, without admitting
a corresponding objective imputation. Once reckon it as
necessary to the completeness of our Lord's humiliation
that He should become like unto His brethren, even to the
extent of reckoning Himself a partaker in the penal con-
sequences of sin, not merely as evil, but as penalty, and
you are forced to ask yourself: Does this subjective con-

' Forgiveness and Lazu, p. 170. 2 Jl/id, p. 166.

3 Ibid. p. 172. * Ibid. p. 167.

The HiLiniliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 326

sciousness of the Saviour answer to any objective law or
principle of divine g-overnment ? or is it merely an exagger-
ated, though amiable, assertion of His solidarity with the
race, on the part of one who burns with the enthusiasm of
humanity ? The latter alternative is not likely to commend
itself to a considerate mind. For Christ in His humiliation
was not wilful. He was not a ^'voliuilaiy" in His humility.
He humbled Himself in the spirit of obedience, doing,
doubtless con amore, what was required of Him, but not
more than was required of Him. If so, then it was the
Father's will that His Son should be on earth as a sinner,
suffering penalty for sin. In this light He regarded His
Son Himself; in this way He would have His Son view His
own position; in this way He would have all men regard
Him. He sent Him into the world, as it were, saying,
" Behold the Lamb of God, who beareth the sin of the
world."

But, all this conceded, there still remains the great
question, In what sense is Christ the bearer of sin by divine
appointment .•' is it in the sense of suffering for sin under
a judicial infliction, or is it merely in the sense of suffering
under the penal sanctions of this present state of probation-
ary discipline .'' The question here has reference not to
what Christ suffered, but to the dcs^i^n for which He
suffered. On either alternative the material of Christ's
sufferings may be the same; but the design varies, accord-
ing as we adopt the one or the other mode of con-
ceiving them. If we conceive those sufferings as a judicial
infliction, then we regard them as a ground on which God,
with a due regard to the claims of justice, grants remission
of sin, involving exemption from all penal consequences,
and especially from the wrath to come. If we conceive
the sufferings as simply amounting to participation in the
penal sanctions of a disciplinary state, then their design
may be simply to enhance the moral power of the sufferer
to bring us out of our sins, and so, as a matter of course,
out of their penal retributions, temporal and eternal. Christ
comes down to our level in order that He may lift us to
His. Finding us under the law, under the curse, under a
system of penal sanctions expressive of divine displeasure

326 The Hu7iiiliation of Christ.

against sin, j-et remedial in their aim, He Himself comes un-
der the law, the curse, the penal sanctions; that He may, by
the moral power thus gained, raise us out of law into liberty,
out of the curse into the blessedness of holiness, out of
penal sanctions into the privileges of sonship. This latter
design is thought to be eminently worthy of God, while the
former is denounced as utterly unworthy of the First Cause
and Last End of all.

Does the case indeed stand so ? Must we, as an increas-
ing number of voices declare, give up the celebrated doc-
trine of satisfaction as indefensible, and, in particular, as
derogatory to the divine wisdom ? This is a question which
cannot be adequately discussed here; but a few general
observations may be submitted, with special reference to
the bearing of the subject upon the character of the supreme
Ruler of the universe. That it became Him for whom are
all things, and by whom are all things, /<?;- one reason or
another, to subject the Captain of salvation to a curriculum
of suffering, is generally admitted. The point in dispute is,
whether it became Him to subject the Saviour of men to
suffering in the form of legal penalty for sin. Now here it
greatly behoves us to recall to mind that expression of the
Apostle Paul's, already casually referred to, wherein he
speaks of the work of redemption through Christ, as con-
taining a revelation or exhibition of the manifold, many-
sided, or, many-coloured wisdom of God — 1) TCoXviroiuiXoi
6ocpia Tou &EOV. The precise connection of thought in which
the expression occurs it is not necessary to point out; it
bears the stamp of a phrase coined by the apostle, to
embody the feeling produced in his mind, by deep and pro-
tracted reflection on the gracious purpose of God in Jesus
Christ. After long, rapt meditation on the sublime theme,
Paul feels that the divine idea of redemption has many
aspects. The pure light of divine wisdom revealed in the
gospel is resolvable into many coloured rays, which to-
gether constitute a glorious spectrum presented to the
admiring view of principalities and powers in heavenly
places, and of all men on earth whose eyes have been
opened to see it. Entering into the apostle's mind on this
great theme, we too should come to the study of our Lord's

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 327

sufferings, prepared to find therein a many-sided revelation
of divine wisdom: not merely the righteous One suffering
for righteousness' sake at the hands of the unrighteous; or
the Holy one suffering sympathetically with the unholy,
that He may win their confidence; or a revelation of divine
love in self-sacrifice, meant to overcome the distrust with
which human beings regard the Deity, and assure them of
His good will; or the Son of God stooping to conquer,
voluntarily humbling Himself, because that is the way to
gain sovereignty over human hearts, and to obtain the
highest of all dominion — that, viz., which wields sway
through moral influence, not through mere physical force;
or a contrivance for securing that the pardon of sin shall
not be prejudicial to the interests of government and good
morals; or, "a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice:" but all
these together. Why not look on the cross as a prism which
analyzes the light of divine wisdom into all these coloured
rays, and possibly into others whose presence we may have
hitherto failed to detect; so, in place of insisting that
Christ's earthly sufferings could serve only one end, acting
as if we believed that the greater the number of ends served
m mutual harmony, the more these sufferings became Him
who, as the First Cause and Last End of all, appointed
them as means to accomplish His own wise purposes .-'
Unity amid variety is doubtless to be desired; and if we
can get one theoretic principle from which we can deduce
all particulars as corollaries, it is well; but meantime it is
most important to take heed that we exclude none of the
facts, and that our induction of particulars be complete. If
we be at a loss as to which aspect of the subject should be
placed first, as the most important, let us at least be care-
ful to omit none of the aspects. Perhaps in past times
theologians have been more anxious to have their cut and
dry theory, than to make a full collection of the facts; and
it is gratifying, therefore, to find recent inquirers on this
as on other theological subjects, preferring the inductive
to the deductive method, according to which, in the words
of Professor Crawford, who has himself adopted this method,
" we first of all address ourselves to the actual statements
of Holy Scripture upon the subject, — deferring in the mean-

o-^'

77^1? Humiliation of Christ.

while all theories and assumptions, — and endeavour, by a
fair examination and a careful comparison and classification
of these statements, to arrive at such conclusions as are
deducible from them." ^

Now it would certainly be very surprising- if it should
turn out, as the result of such an induction, that the suffer-
ings of Christ stood in no relation to the attributes of divine
holiness and justice. One would expect to find the satis-
factory manifestation of these attributes taking its place
among the ends for the accomplishment of which it became
the Supreme to make the Captain of salvation a sufferer,
alongside the manifestation of divine compassion in sympa-
thizing- with man's misery, and of divine mercy in forgiving
man's sin, and of divine condescension in stooping to man's
low level, and of divine love in bearing man's woe. Why
should the cross reveal all these last-named attributes, and
not also God's holy hatred of sin, and His justice in punish-
ing sin .'' In revealing these not less than those, does it not
only the more completely display the divine wisdom, by ex-
hibiting that attribute as one which can accomplish many
different ends by one and the same means? If Christ
crucified be the wisdom of God as satisfying His love through
self-sacrifice, is He not still more the wisdom of God in
satisfying at once both His love and His justice — His love,
by suffering in sympathy with the sinner's misery; His
justice, by suffering penalty for sin in the sinner's stead .■' ^

To this it may be replied: Yes, were the two ends com-

i The Atonement, p. 3,

" Some may prefer to make the reference to justice spring out of the idea of
love. In this way is the subject regarded in a recent American pubhcation which
I have read with very great pleasure: Old Faiths in New Light, by Newman
Smith (Scribner, New York). Mr. Smith says: " In thinking of the ways of God
which meet in the Incarnation, our all-illumining conception must be derived
from the purest human experience of love. . . . Now human love has in it three
essential elements; there are three primary colours in love's perfect light; and
tliese three are, the giving of self, or benevolence; the puttmg self in another's
place, sympathy, or the vicariousness of love; and the assertion of the worth of
the gift, of the self which is given — self-respect, or the righteousness of love. Under
the conception of vicariousness, and the assertion of its own worth involved in per-
fect love, the Christian doctrines of Atonement and Redemption need to be re-
garded; and when considered from any lower point of view, as that of law or gov-
ernment, the sacrificial work of Christ is hardly lifted out of difficulties and shadows
into a pure moral light." — P. 277.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 329

patible; but they are not. The dogma of satisfaction, in the I
ecclesiastical sense, makes God a merchant of Venice, who l^ \J
stands for justice, and demands the pound of flesh from i
one quarter or another — ^just, but utterly ungenerous; nay,
not even just, for the dogma involves the perpetration of
the injustice of inflicting upon the innocent penalty due to
the guilty — an injustice miserably cloaked by the theologic
fiction of imputation. Now, certainly any theory which
were justly chargeable with degrading the Most High into
a Merchant of Venice, would be worthy only of reprobation. \
But before condemnation is pronounced, care must be
taken to ascertain that it is not a case of extremes meeting.
What if the two characters compared meet in the one point
of standing for justice, and be in all other respects the moral
antipodes of each other } The fact is even so. What God
demands is, as we shall see, not the exact pound of flesh,
neither more nor less; and what He does demand, He takes
not from any quarter, even from an enemy, but from the
heart of His own beloved Son. A similar observation may ^
be made in reply to Ritschl's objection, that thfi-Xicthodox. I Ij
doctrine makes God a Pharisee, who will have dealings
only with perfectly righteous men.^ Here again we have
a case of extremes meeting. It is quite true in one sense
that God has dealings only with the morally perfect; for,
as Schleiermacher has said, Only the complete can stand
before Him.^ But herein God differs toto coelo from the
Pharisee, that He has taken pains to establish a mediated
fellowship with the imperfect through the perfect One.
We are " accepted in the Beloved." God hath dealings
with the sinful in such a way that His zeal for holiness is
above suspicion. While holding loving intercourse with
the morally defective. He keeps the realized Ideal of
moral excellence ever in His eye, and requires us to do the
same, that we may know our standing to be, not on our
merit, or on divine laxity, but on divine grace. How
different from the Pharisee is God in all this ! Pharisaic
righteousness is exclusive; God's righteousness is self-

' Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und VersSJmnng, vol. ii. p. 312, iii. p. 96.
« Der christliche Glatibe, ii. p. 135; Nur das Vollkommne vor Gott vorstehea
kann.

330 The Humiliation of Christ.

communicative. The Pharisee knows of no way to show
his love for righteousness, other than by holding aloof from
the unrighteous. God, in His beloved Son, makes such a
manifestation of His righteousness, that He appears at once
as a just God and as a Saviour; righteous, and making-
righteous him that belleveth on Jesus, accepting the un-
righteous for the sake of His righteous One.

But the main stress of the objection to the Catholic doc-
trine is not directed against the idea of God being well
pleased with the imperfect out of regard to the perfect One;
for what else but this is meant by Ritschl's own doctrine,
that God imputes to sinners their fellowship with Christ as
a ground for a fellowship between them and Himself .-* The
offence lies in the idea of the innocent suffering in the place
of the guilty, as if their unrighteousness were imputed to
Him, and made a ground of penal procedure against Him.
But are not the two imputations one in principle .'' does
not the one imply the other .■' Ritschl, indeed, as we have
seen,' will not hear of an imputation of Christ's righteous-
ness to us, but only of an imputation of our fellowship with
Him. Be it so; the question then takes this shape: If our
fellowship with Christ may be imputed to us as a ground
of favour before God, may not Christ's fellowship .with us
be imputed to Him as a ground why He should become in
a judicial sense the bearer of our iniquities } Of the reality
of the fellowship there can be no doubt. The innocent One
vvho suffers for the guilty is no stranger who has fortunately
been discovered somewhere in the universe, and found will-
ing to become the sacrificial victim. He is a kinsman of
the guilty, one with them not only in sympathy, but also
by divine appointment, as truly as the members of one
family are brethren. This fact helps at least to explain
the strange phenomenon of innocence suffering for guilt.
It were too much to say that the covenant oneness be-
tween Christ and sinners makes everything axiomatically
plain; for, as Professor Crawford has pointed out, by con-
necting our Lord's sufferings with a covenant, we shift the
difficulty rather than solve it.^ The question may be
raised regarding such a covenant, Was it not a pachan il~

' Vid. v). 312. - The Atonement, p. 144.

The Hu7niliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 331

licitmn ? But it is going too far on the other hand to say,
that the idea of a covenant does not in the smallest degree
help to clear up the mysteriousness of Christ's sufferings in
the room of the guilty. It renders this service at least,
that it brings those sufferings within the scope of anal-
ogies, which help us to see that they are in harmony with
the world in which we live. For it is a fact, that the closer
men are connected by family, social, or political ties, the
more they are dealt with, under divine Providence, as a
joint-stock company both for good and for evil. Whether
this be just or not according to our notions, it is, at all
events, the sort of justice that is agoing. It is something
to see this. It helps us to abstain from dogmatizing, and
to submit to a mystery which we cannot understand. But
we are not under the necessity of resigning ourselves, per-
manently, to the despairing attitude of men who regard
divine justice as something simply inscrutable. On patient
inquiry, we find that this perplexing sort of justice, which
looks so very like injustice, has a good deal to say for it-
self. It is less than just, only because it is a great deal
more. The constitution under which we live, in nature and
in grace, departs from the strict rule of retributive justice
which renders to each man according to his works, in the
interest of that great principle of love for which alone, ac-
cording to many, God has any regard. While inflicting on
involuntary sufferers much suffering which they may gloom-
ily regard as a dismal fate, it supplies to love, willing to
suffer, a glorious opportunity, making it possible for one to
do good to others by prayer, like Abraham; by character,
like David; by holy obedience in life and death, like the
great Captain of salvation.^ Such a constitution is worthy

' The principle of vicariousness is involved in intercessory prayer not less than
in the doctrine of atonement, and it admits of the same defence in the one case as
in the other — viz. that its recognition by God affords opportunity and stimulus to
love. On this aspect of the subject Dr. Price has some good observations in his
Dissertation on Prayer. To the question of a supposed objector to intercessory
prayer, V/hat influence can our prayers have on the state of others ? he replies by
pointing out that it is not necessary to suppose that the treatment which beings
shall receive depends in all cases solely on what they are in themselves; that though
this is what the universal Governor chiefly regards, it is not all; and that while
there are some benefits which no means can obtain for beings who have not cer-
tain qualifications, there are others which one being may obtain for another. He

332 The Humiliatioji of Christ.

of Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.
It is a constitution based on grace, and pervaded by grace
throughout. This holds true even with regard to the
covenant of works, which we are accustomed to set in con-
trast to the covenant of grace. There was grace even in
that earliest covenant in this respect among others, that it
held the race to be represented by its first individual mem-
ber as its head. That procedure was not according to the
strict rule of retributive justice, which renders to each man,
as an isolated unit, according to his individual desert; but
it was a procedure subservient to the purposes of grace, for
it caused sin and the curse to abound, that grace might
superabound. And grace was not tardy in beginning its
benign sway. It came into play from the moment Adam
fell. The second Adam began His reign of grace the day
sin entered the world, producing by His secret influence,
long before He came in the flesh, effects which are unde-
niable as facts, but which are not always traced to their
true cause. Bushnell and Ritschl both tell us that God's
dealings with mankind in this life are not of a strictly ju-
dicial character, that mercy is largely mingled with judg-
ment, and that wrath, in the absolute sense, is a thing to
come. The latter of these writers even goes so far as to
say, that the very idea of retributive justice is hardly to be
found in Scripture, being traceable only in one or two texts
in Paul's Epistles, where for the moment he accommodates
himself to the Pharisaic standpoint of the unchristian Jews
with whom he is arguing. Righteousness as an attribute
of God, according to Scripture usage as interpreted by
Ritschl, signifies the consistency with which God conducts
His federally faithful people to their promised destiny, and
is substantially the same thing as grace.^ How differently
different men read the Bible ! Matthew Arnold sees in
the Old Testament nothing but a Power making for

then goes on to say: " The whole scheme of nature seems to be contrived on pur-
pose in such a manner as that beings might have it in their power in numberless
ways to bless one another. . . . One end of this constitution appears plainly to
be, to give us room and scope for the exercise of beneficence." — Four Disserta-
tions, p. 233, 2d edition.

' Die christliche Lehre von der Recht/ertigung und VersOhnimg, u. pp. 106,
no, conf. iii. 412.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 333

righteousness, in the sense of tending to make character
and lot correspond — that is, to render to men, individually
and collectively, according to their works. Ritschl sees
in the same Scriptures nothing but Grace, tending to con-
duct a chosen race to the attainment of an unmerited good.
Each has seen but half the truth, though the theologian
certainly comes nearer the truth than the litterateur y for
the distinctive idea of revealed religion is God manifesting
Himself as the God of grace. But passing from this, and
reverting to the statement that God's dealings with the
race in this world are not of a strictly or exclusively ju-
dicial character, I remark that such is the blessed fact.
Though the fallen race is under the divine displeasure, it
is also to a large extent under divine mercy: God is good
to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. ^ He
is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of
great mercy, ^ to such an extent that His patience has often
been a stumbling-block and an offence to the good; as to
Job, who asked in wonder why God did not appoint peri-
odic times of judgment, when, like a judge on circuit, He
might try the wicked, and punish them for their iniquities; '
and to Jonah, who deserted God's service, giving as a rea-
son, " For I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and mer-
ciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest
Thee of the evil." * But, what is the rationale of this di-
vine patience .'' God's patience with a sinful world, from
the beginning had its ground in Christ; even as, after
Christ's advent in the flesh, it received its justification
through His sacrifice on Calvary. Hence the divine wink-
ing at heathen ignorance and idolatry;^ hence the divine
forbearance with the sin of pre-Christian times;* hence the
divine patience with the chosen people, under the ever-ac-
cumulating load of unexpiated transgression, with which
the inheritance was so heavily burdened as to be of little
value to the heir;' hence the continued existence of the
fallen race, banished from Paradise and under the curse,
yet under a curse much and many ways modified, insomuch

' Ps. cxlv. 9. 2 Ps cxlv. 8. 3 Job xxiv. i.

* Jonah iv. 2. » Acts xvii, 30. e Rom. iii. 25.

' Heb. ix. 15.

334 ^^^ Huiniliatioii of Christ.

that Zuingli felt emboldened to say, that while orif^inal
sin by itself would have made all men damnable, it does
not in fact, because of the plan of redemption. The se-
cret of all this marvellous forbearance with a dark, wicked
world was the Son in the bosom of the Father, a mystery
hid for many generations from men, so that it exercised
little power over them as a subjective influence, except
as the object of a dim starlight hope or presentiment; a
mystery hid in God, but not hid from Him, but, on the
contrary, determining His attitude towards, and influenc-
ing His dealings with, the world, as truly before as it has
done since the Incarnation.^ All this vast influence on the
fortunes of the human race Christ exercised, as the Lamb
slain, from the foundation of the world. As the Logos of
God, He made the worlds; as the Son of' God, He upheld
all things by the word of His power; as the Lamb of God,
He secured for a guilty race that it should have a history,
and a history which, while bearing abundant traces of di-
vine displeasure, should not less manifestly wear upon it a
stamp of divine patience, goodness, and mercy. Hence,
when the Lamb was actually slain in the fulness of time,
the event was what the Apostle Paul calls a declaration
of God's righteousness in His relation to the pre-Christian
world.^ It revealed the true ground of the divine proce-
dure, and, if we may so say, redeemed the divine character
from the charge of laxity, as if God had behaved Himself
towards men like an absolute but benignant despot, deal-
ing leniently with his slaves, partly in lofty contempt,
partly in humane pity; by showing that in all His dealings
with men, wherein He dealt not with them after their sins, He
ha J regard to the perfect One who, in the end of the
world, was to appear to atone for sin by the sacrifice of
Himself. Be it observed, this is not to degrade Christ's
sacrifice into a governmental display intended to act on
men's fears, and prevent them from abusing divine good-
ness. An atonement after the fashion of a governmental
display has no effect on God, and it has an effect on men
only after the display has been made; and it affects them
by making them believe that God is more severe than ex
» Eph. iii. 9. 2 Rom. iii. 25, 26.

The Himiiliatioit of Christ in its Official Aspect. 335

hypothesi He really is. The atonement made by Christ was a
display of God's righteousness, in Paul's sense, as revealing
the hidden ground of past forbearance on God's part towards
men, clearing God's action of all appearance of laxity, and
making manifest that He was in reality more severe than
He seemed. And it accomplished all this, just because the
Lamb of God, in His sacrifice, was the subject of judicial
dealing, bearing on Him the sin of the world. God was
justified in not dealing with men after their sins, by deal-
ing with the sinless One as a sinner. Christ suffering under
a penal-sanction discipline would not have served the pur-
pose. This view makes Christ simply one factor in the
world's moral education, coming in at the proper juncture
and exercising a critical influence on the process, from that
point onwards; contemplated by God from the first in that
capacity, but exercising no influence whatever on the earlier
stages of the process. In Paul's view, Christ is the main-
spring of all human history, the hidden ground of the di-
vine attitude and procedure towards the world from the
first; not merely the power (?/"God since His Incarnation,
but a power zvith God, as the Lamb slain by foreordination,
from the creation onwards through all the pre-Christian
ages.

But supposing it to be conceded that Christ, as the sin-
bearer in the eye of law, exercised a controlling influence
on the whole history of God's relations to the world, an
important question still remains, viz. how far is Christ's
position as the sin-bearer reconcilable with His own per-
sonal relation to His heavenly Father, which, as exhibited
in the gospel history, was one of perfect, unbroken mutual
fellowship } Now, in proceeding to make some observa-
tions on this delicate topic, I remark at the outset, that the
fact as to Christ's relationship to His Father is as stated,
and that it must fare badly with any theory which cannot
afford to make this admission. Throughout His life on
earth Jesus loved His Father with His whole heart, and
believed Himself to be so loved in turn by His Father. In
this respect the relation between Father and Son continued
as it was before the Incarnation. The only difference pro-
duced by that event was, that in the incarnate state the

336 The Humiliatio7i of Christ.

Son had to maintain His fellowship of love with His Fathet
through faith, and amid experiences by which His faith
was more or less severely tried. The capacity of sin-bearer,
in which He underwent those experiences, did not alter the
relation; for if Christ was in fact legally the sin-bearer
while on earth, He was the sin-bearer by destination before
He came into the world; and if the purpose understood on
both sides was compatible with perfect fellowship, while the.
Son was in the bosom of the Father, why should its ex-
ecution in time interrupt the good understanding ? We
must here recall to mind the truth set forth in our eighth
axiom, that Christ's state of humiliation was at the same
time a state invested with moral dignity and glory, as one
in which He had, by the favour of His Father, an oppor-
tunity of achieving a sublime task, in His high and hon-
ourable calling as the Captain of salvation. Christ Himself
did not lose sight of this truth; it was ever present to His
thoughts, carrying Him through the hardest experiences
as the mere incidents of a congenial vocation. Hence,
though a man of sorrow. He was even on earth anointed
with the oil of gladness above His fellows. Does this seem
strange .■* Why, even Apollo, unjustly banished from heaven,
and cherishing a sense of injury done to him by Jove, in
his state of exile, a neatherd in the service of Admetus, is
represented by the poet as making the vale of Pheraea
vocal with the sweet sounds of his lute, and gathering the
wild beasts around him by the charms of celestial music*
Shall we wonder that there was divine gladness in the heart
of Him who came into this world, not by constraint, but
willingly; not with a burning sense of wrong, but with a
grateful sense of high privilege; and that He had a blessed
consciousness of fellowship with His Father, who sent Him,
during the whole of His pilgrimage through this vale of
tears .'' It is true, indeed, that the position assigned to
Christ by the Catholic theory gives to His suffering experi-
ence an aspect which may seem incompatible with such
fellowship; and therefore one who is determined to hold
by the latter at all hazards may think it necessary to deny
that Christ either did occupy such a position on earth, or
' Euripides, Alcestis.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 337

that it was ever intended that He should occupy it. For
if He suffered as the sin-bearer, then His sufferings were
penal, and bore to His view the aspect of an expression of
divine anger against sin. But the notion that such a way of
viewing His sufferings could not be combined in the Saviour's
consciousness with a fellowship of faith and love towards
His Father, while not unnatural, is nevertheless mistaken,
and based upon misunderstanding. For two things must
be borne in mind if we would understand this matter aright.
One is, that at no time was the Saviour the object of His
Father's personal displeasure. This must be held to be a
necessary corollary from Christ's personal holiness, and as
such it has been accepted by all writers who have handled
this topic with due discrimination; as, e. g., notably by
Calvin, who says: " We do not indeed insinuate that God
was either ever opposed to or angry with Him. For how
could He be angry with His beloved Son, in whom His
mind rested .-• or how could Christ, by His intercession,
propitiate for others a Father whom He had as an enemy to
Himself.''" The true relation of the Saviour to the divine
anger is indicated by the same great theologian in the fol-
lowing sentence of the place from which I quote: " This
we say, that He sustained the gravity of divine severity;
since, being stricken and afflicted by the hand of God, He
experienced all the signs of an angry and punishing Godl'^
The other thing most needful to be borne in mind is, that
Christ was under the anger of God, in the sense explained
so well in these words of Calvin, not only during His last
sufferings, but during the whole time of His humiliation.
It is true that the extreme and most striking signs of divine
anger were concentrated in the brief crisis of the passion;
the only signs which appear to have put a very severe
strain upon the Saviour's faith, and in connection with
which His consciousness of being under the divine anger
against sin, found unmistakable expression in the confes-

' Calvini Instihitio, lib. ii. cap. xvi. Ii: Neque tamen innuimus Deum fuisse
unqiiam illi vel adversarium vel iratum. Quomodo enim dilecto Filio, in que
animus ejus acquievit, irasceretur? aut quomodo Christus Patrem aliis sua inter-
cessione placard, quern infensum haberet ipse sibi? Sed hoc nos dicimus, divinae
severitatis gravitatem eum sustinuisse: quoniam manu Dei percussus et afflictus,
omnia irati et punientis Dei signa expertus est.

33^ The Humiliation of Christ.

sion of weakness in Gethsemane, and in the complaints of
desertion on the cross. But we are not to suppose that,
in these final experiences, new not in kind but in degree,
the Father entered into a new relation to His Son, which
was the cause and explanation of these peculiar experiences,
and of them alone. The relation was the same throughout,
and was in the same sense cause and explanation of Christ's
whole state of humiliation. Throughout that state the Son
of God was under the divine anger against sin manifesting
itself in one way at one time, in another way at another;
sometimes from causes which we can understand, some-
times from causes which are unfathomable. This way of
looking at the matter, I am aware, has not been very
generally followed, theologians, for the most part, having
treated Christ's experience of His Father's wrath as a
special item in His humiliation, which He underwent in
connection with the crucifixion. The other view, however,
according to which the wrath of God embraces the whole
state of humiliation, under a certain aspect, has not been
left entirely out in the cold by theologians. It can quote
in its own behalf at least two first-class authorities from
the sixteenth century, the Heidelberg Catechism on the
Reformed side, and Plutterus as representing the Lutherans;
the former teaching that Christ, during the whole time of
His life on earth, but especially at its close, sustained in
His body and in His soul the anger of God against the sin
of the whole human race;^ the latter representing our
Saviour as truly experiencing the sense of infernal pains,
not for a moment, or some small space of time, but through-
out the whole time of exinanition.^ The same idea has
been reproduced in modern times by at least two German
theologians, Bodemeyer' and Hofmann; the former a hyper-
orthodox Lutheran; the latter occupying an independent

I See Lecture i. of this course, p. 37.

* Quoted by Schmid: Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-luthcrisclien Kirchc, 5te
Auf. p. 303. The words are: Quemadmodum sane Christus noii ad momentum
vel exiguum aliquod temporis spatium, sed per omne tempus exinanitionis, sensum
dolorum istorum infernalium vere subiit, ita ut tandem exclamare necessum hab-
eret, Deus meus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti ?

3 Die Lehre von der Kenosis dargesteilt, Gotlingen 1S60. This author unden
stands the kenosis in the old Lutheran sense of Hpvipi.

The Hzcmiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 339

theological view-point, and regarded by intelligent readers
as making important approximations to orthodoxy; while
he is universally admitted, by friends and foes alike, to be
worthy of all honour for his ability, candour, and reverential
regard for the authority of Scripture. Hofmann's remarks
on this subject are so well fitted to convey a distinct idea
of what is meant by saying that Christ was under the
anger of God throughout His life, that I feel tempted to
indulge in a somewhat lengthy quotation, all the more that
the book from which I quote is not likely to become gen-
erally known in this country. Contrasting his own views
with those of Thomasius, who limits Christ's experience of
divine wrath to the passion, Hofmann says: " To me, that
Christ assumed our nature, and that He came under the
anger of God, are one and the same thing. Humanity
being under God's anger, it is for me a matter of course
that Christ's entrance into humanity is a self-subjection to
this anger. As, now, the whole history of the Lord is the
carrying out of that relation to His Father, in which He
placed Himself by His Incarnation; so He experienced,
from His conception to His death, the anger of the Father
against humanity, according to the measure of the progress
of His history; in one way before and during His unfolding
to human self-conscious life, otherwise after the same; in
one way as a man in general, otherwise as an Israelite in
particular; in one way before the beginning of His public
life, otherwise in the course of the same; in one way in the
time of His work, otherwise in the hours of His passion and
death. Is all evil in the world effect of the anger of God
against sinful humanity .-' — then all experience of the former
is experience of the latter. And is it God's anger against
sinful humanity which brings about that Satan tempts ajid
opposes us .'' — then Christ also experienced the same in all
the temptations and assaults of Satan. God's anger against
sin placed Israel under the law of commandments and pro-
hibitions. Made under this law, Christ stands under the
wrath, without which the law had not been. God's anger
against Israel's transgression of the law brought that people
into misery. This anger Jesus felt in sharing the misery
of Israel and of the house of David. Finally, is it God's

340 The Humiliatioti of Christ.

anger against sin which gives the righteous up to the un-
righteous, that the latter may fill up the measure of his
iniquity and be ripe for judgment ? — even so, this same
anger gives Christ up to His enemies; to Satan it delivers
Him up as a victim, that the enmity against God, and what
is God's, may fill up its cup of judgment. For in both
shows itself the anger of God against sin; that it forgives
not sin without Christ, and such a history of Christ: and
that through the same Christ in whom God makes propitia-
tion for sin for the benefit of the penitent, this very sin in
the impenitent reaches the point at which, as completed
enmity against God, it is given over to final judgment."*
It appears to me that the way of viewing the present topic,
here advocated by Hofmann," has much to recommend it;
and this not least, that it enables us to dispose easily of
such a representation of the Catholic doctrine as is given
by thoroughgoing opponents — by Martineau, e.g., in the
following horrible sentences, occurring in an account of the
orthodox views of the crucifixion as understood by him:
" The anguish He endures is not chiefly that which falls
so poignantly on the eye and ear of the spectator; the in-
jured human affections, the dreadful momentary doubt;
the pulses of physical torture doubling on Him with full or
broken wave, till driven back by the overwhelming power
of love disinterested and divine. But He is judicially
abandoned by the infinite Father, who expends on Him
the immeasurable wrath due to an apostate race^ gathers
up into an hour the lightnings of eternity, and lets them
loose upon that bended head. It is the moment of retri-
butive justice, the expiation of all human guilt; that open
brow hides beneath it the despair of millions of men, and
te the intensity of agony there, no human wail could give
expression. Meanwhile the future brightens on the elect;
the tempests that hung over their horizon are spent. The

' Schiitzschriften, Zweiter SlUck, pp. 94, 95. The Schriftbeweis gave rise to
consideniV)le controversy in Germany, in the course of which Hofmann rephed to
his opponents, and gave important explanations on some points of his system.
These replies were published, as a collection of pamphlets, under the title
Schutzschriften.

2 It is adopted also by Van Oosterzee, who quotes with approval the passage in
which it is taught in the Heidelberg Catechism. Vid. The Image of Christ, p. 254.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 341

vengeance of the Lawgiver having had its way, the sunshine
of a Father's grace breaks forth, and lights up with hope
and beauty the earth, which had been a desert of despair
and sin."' Bear in mind the two axioms already enunci-
ated, that Christ was at no time the object of His Father's
personal displeasure, but suffered only the signs — the effecty
not the affection — of divine anger; and that He suffered
these signs in one form or another, not for an hour, but for
a lifetime; and the force of the above passage, as a refuta-
tion, by mere statement, of the orthodox doctrine, is at
once seen to be broken.

But does the orthodox doctrine not preclude us from
adopting these axioms, especially the former of the two i" —
Does not the dogma of satisfaction imply that Christ suf-
fered in sinners' stead the very thing that they should have
suffered — that is to say, real positive, unqualified damna-
tion, utter separation from God in spiritual death, nay,
even eternal death itself.'' It suits the opponents of the
dogma to say so. Thus Ritschl affirms that the assump-
tion that Christ experienced, at least momentarily, eternal
damnation, is the inevitable condition of the satisfactory
value of His sufferings before the judgment of God;^ and
Socinus, to whose views on the whole subject of Christ's
work those of Ritschl bear too close a resemblance, sought
to involve the orthodox position in hopeless contradiction,
by maintaining that while, on the one hand, the end for
which the Saviour died — viz. the salvation of men — de-
manded that He should rise from the dead unto eternal
life; the dogma of satisfaction, on the other hand, demanded
that He should endure, not intensively merely, but exten-
sively, eternal death. ^ The assumption on which both
virtually proceed is, that the satisfaction required is of a
pecuniary character, sin being conceived of as a debt which
can be cancelled only by the endurance of suffering equal
in amount to that due to sinners, or at least of the same
quality and value. It must be acknowledged that the

> Studies of Christianity, p. 86.

* Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung tind VersOhtittng, iii. p. 416.
3 De Servatore, pars tertia, c. iv. : Haec enim satisfactio, in eo, qui nos serva-
turns est, aeternam mortem; ista autem nos servandi ratio aeternam vitam requirit.

342 The Humiliation of Christ.

defenders of the dogma have too often weakened their
position by virtually conceding this assumption to their
opponents, and arguing as if they were under an obligation
to make out not only a moral equivalence in respect of
value, but so close a resemblance in the nature or quality
of Christ's sufferings as amounts to a virtual identity.
Thus, e.g.. Van Mastricht labours to prove that Christ
endured death in all senses; not only death temporal, but
death spiritual and eternal; ^ and indeed many dogmatists,
both of the Lutheran and of the Reformed confessions,
laid down the position that Christ experienced eternal
death intensive though not extensive; though some, as e. g.
Gerhard, shrank from the statement in this bald form,
assigning as a reason why the Saviour could not endure
eternal death, that He was personally the most innocent
and most beloved Son of God. Sometimes the matter was
put in this way, that our Lord suffered the essence, apart
from the accidents, of eternal death; the accidents being
remorse, despair, and the like.^ In going into these lines
of thought, the defenders of orthodoxy went off the right
track; for, as Dr. Charles Hodge has pointed out, there is a
more excellent way — that, viz., of emphasizing the dis-
tinction between the natia^e and the design of Christ's
sufferings. It is a mistake to suppose that the doctrine of
satisfaction requires these sufferings to be the same even in
kind, not to speak of degree, as the sufferings of those
whom Christ died to redeem. "The words 'penal' and
'penalty,'" to quote the well-weighed language of the
American divine just referred to, " do not designate any
particular kind or degree of suffering, but any kind or any
degree which is judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice.
The word ' death,' as used in Scripture to designate the
wages or reward of sin, includes all kinds and degrees of
suffering inflicted as its punishment. By the words ' penal '
and * penalty,' therefore, we express nothing concerning
the nature of the sufferings endured, but only the design of
their infliction."^ The same views are expressed with equai

' Thecretico-praetica Theologin, lib. v. cap. xii. §§ vi.-ix.
« Vid. Appendix, Note C.
'' Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 474.

The Hitmiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 3 '[3

point and clearness by another American theologian of
the same name, Dr. Archibald Hodge: " He (Christ) did
not render a pecuniary satisfaction, and therefore did not
suffer the same degree nor duration, nor in all respects the
same kind of sufferings, which the law would have inflicted
on the sinner in person. . . . The substitution of a divine
for a human victim necessarily involved a change in the
quality, though none whatever in the legal relations of the
suffering."* Again: " We say that Christ suffered the very
penalty of the law, not because He suffered in the least the
same kind, much less the same degree, of suffering as was
penally due those for whom He acted, because that is not
at all necessary to the idea of penalty." " When this dis-
tinction between the design and the nature of our Lord's
sufferings is grasped, it protects us from the temptation to
which the older dogmaticians partly yielded, of reasoning
deductively from the supposed requirements of a theory as
to what these sufferings imist have been, and leaves us free
to inquire with unbiassed mind what the Scriptures repre-
sent them achially to have been. Instead of starting with
the assumption, that the thing demanded was the exact
pound of flesh, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, we
are content to learn from the word of God wherein the
satisfying virtue and value of the atonement consisted;
remembering that the authoritative estimate of the virtue
and the value lies, not with us, but with the unerring judg-
ment of the all-wise God, and that while the divine estimate,
as ascertained from Scripture, may approve itself to our
minds and consciences afterhand, it may yet in some
respects be different from what we should have conjectured
beforehand, or from the a /r/^r/' determinations of system-
atic theology. This attitude, it will be observed, is not to
be confounded with that of those who, with Duns Scotus,
make the acceptance of Christ's death by God, as a satis-i
faction for sin, a mere affair of arbitrary will or divine
caprice. The theory of acceptilation, as it is called,
recognises no standard by which the value of the atonement
can be determined, and represents God as simply choosing

' The Atonement, by Rev. Archibald A. Hodt^e, D.D., p. 28.
2 Ibid. p. 36.

344 ^^'^ Humiliation of CJuHst.

to ascribe infinite worth to that which, in reality, had
only a limited worth. The doctrine now contended for,
on the contrary, is that the atonement rendered by Christ
has the value of a sufficient satisfaction for the sin of the
world, as determined by intelligible moral considerations,
as opposed to mere caprice; only it makes the standard
depend, not on man's judgment, in the first place, but on
the infallible judgment of divine wisdom.

Looking, then, into the Scriptures with unbiassed mind,
in order to find out the elements of value in our Lord's
atoning work, as estimated by the wisdom of the omniscient
Spirit, we observe that emphasis is laid on at least four
things: first, the dignity of the Sufferer; second, His obe~
dience to His Father's will; third, His love to sinners; and
fourth. His sufferings themselves. The divine dignity of
the Sufferer is pointed at as an important factor in the de-
termination of the value of His atoning work in various
places, as in the famous passage in Paul's Epistle to the
Philippians, so often alluded to in these Lectures, where it
is noted that He who was obedient unto death was One
who had been in the form of God; and where Christ is
spoken of as offering Himself unto God by the eternal
Spirit;^ and yet again, where the heinous nature of the
sin of apostasy is indicated, by representing the apostate
as trampling under foot the Son of God, and counting His
blood, the blood of the new covenant, a common thing. ^
These passages imply that the divine dignity of Christ
gives to His death infinite worth, eternal validity as a
sacrifice, inexpressible sacredness. Socinus objected to
this element being taking into account, as making God a
respecter of persons.^ The objection is utterly frivolous;
for nothing is more evident to common sense, than that in
a penal, as distinct from a pecuniary satisfaction, the person
of the substitute comes into consideration as affecting the
value of his performance. When a sum of money is due, it
has to be paid in full, no matter by whom. When what is
required is reparation of an injury done to the law by a
moral offence, the imprisonment for a limited period of a

' Heb. ix. 14. " Heb. x. 29.

3 De Servatore, pars tertia, cap. iv.

77^^? Himiiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 346

prince may be equivalent to the incarceration of a plebeian
for life. The other argument of Socinus, against taking the
dignity of Christ into account — that if it were allowed, it
would involve a charge of cruelty against God in subject-
ing His Son to more suffering than there was need for — is
equally frivolous.' It does not follow, because the dignity
is to be taken into account, that therefore the suffering may
be reduced to a form, a mere bowing of the head, so to
speak, by the way of obeisance to the law which governs
the world. In that case there might be room for a charge
of partiality. To exclude such a possibility, and to sho.v
that the law's claims were being earnestly dealt with, it
was needful that the sin-bearer, though divine, should
endure all that it was possible for a holy Being to suffer in
the way of penalty.

That the holiness or obedience of Christ enters as an ele-
ment into the estimate of value, is taught by clear implica-
tion in those words of the Apostle Peter, where he reminds
his readers that they have been redeemed, not with cor-
ruptible things, such as silver and gold, but by the precious
blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot? The same truth is taught in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, where the offering by Christ of His body in
sacrifice is represented as the climax and consummation of
His obedience to God's will.^ In this text the passion of
the Saviour is conceived of as having its value, in being an
act of obedience which formed the crown of a life of obedi-
ence. Herein, according to the writer of the Epistle, lay
the incomparable merit of Christ's sacrifice, as opposed to
the legal sacrifices, wherein the blood-shedding of involun-
tary brute-victims had only a ritual and no ethical signi-
ficance. What pleased God was not the mere fact that the
blood of His Son was shed. To imagine such a thing were
to fall back into Jewish ritualism, and to put the offering
on Calvary on a level with the offering of bulls and goats.
To quote the words of Turretine, " the satisfaction is not to '
be ascribed merely to the external oblation of blood, but
specially to the internal act — that is, to the free .^nd

' De Scrvatore, pars tertia, cap. iv.

» I Pet. i. i8-, 19. 3 Heb. x. 4-10.

346 The Humiliation of Christ.

most stedfast will of Christ — by which we are said to be
sanctified." ^

Prominence is given to the element of love to the sinful,
as entering into the divine estimate of the value of Christ's
sacrifice, by the Apostle Paul in the familiar text: " Walk
in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Him-
self for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-
smelling savour." "' Here the beautiful thought is suggested,
that the love to the sinful, manifested by Christ in dying
for them, made His death well-pleasing to His Father, as-
cending up to heaven as a sweet savour, like the smoke of
sacrificial victims from the altar of burnt-offering. This is
poetry; but it is also sound theology, as Aquinas recog-
nised when he spake of the passion of the Saviour as having
value in God's sight, not only on account of the diginity of
the Sufferer and the severity of His sufferings, but very
specially on account of the greatness of the love which
moved Him to suffer — propter magnitndinem cJiaritatis?
And it is not unimportant to remark here, that when
we regard "the magnitude of the charity" as an element
of value, we see at once that the amount of suffering could
not be other than great; for if we should be ready to accept
as strictly true the sentiment on which the doctrine o'i sat-
isfactio supcralnindans is based, that the smallest amount
of suffering endured by such an august Being, even the
shedding of a single drop of His blood, would have sufficed
to satisfy divine justice, it is certain that it would not have
sufficed to satisfy the Saviour's own love. For the grati-
fication of its own yearning, as also to ensure a return of
the greatest possible amount of grateful love for those

' Institiitio, vol. ii. p. 394, locus decimus quartus, quaestio xiii, sec. xii.: Et
satisfactio non externae tantum sanguinis oblationi adscribsnda est, sed praecipue
actui interno, nimirum spontaneae ejus et constantissimae voluntati, qua sanctificari
dicimur.

2 Eph. V. 2.

3 Summa, pars tertia, q. xlviii. art. ii. : Christus autem ex charitate et obedientia
patiendo majus aliquid Deo exhibuit quam exigeret recompensatio totius oft'ensae
huii\ani generis: primo quidem propter nmagniludinem charitatis ex qua patiebatur.
He gives as his second and third reasons: (2) Propter dignitatem vitae suae, quae
erat vita Dei et hominis, (3) propter generalitatem passionis et maanitudinem
doloris assumpti. On these grounds Aquinas based his doctrine of satisfactio
superabundans .

The Humiliation of Chrisi in its Official Aspect. 347

receiving- the benefit, that love would be content with
nothing short of enduring all that it was barely possible fot
a sinless Being to experience in the way of suffering.'

Yet the statements of Scripture, in speaking of Christ's
sufferings, are characterized by a dignified sobriety. No-
where can we discover the slightest tendency to exaggera-
tion or straining, either in support of a theory, or with a
view to rhetorical effect. Sometimes the mere fact that
Christ died is mentioned, as when Paul, summing up the
gospel he had preached to the Corinthians, specifies as one
item, "how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures;" and as when, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
Jesus is spoken of as crowned with glory and honour, that
He by the grace of God might taste death for every man;'
and even whefe the connection of thought required the in-
spired writers to exhibit the sufferings of the Saviour in as
intense a light as possible, their statements are not so
strong as one accustomed to the dogmatic style of treat-
ment might expect or desiderate. The writer of the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews, when he would commend Jesus as the
pattern of patience, says of Him simply, that He "endured
the cross, despising the shame." Paul, when he would ex-
hibit the humility of Christ in its utmost depth of self-abase-
ment, indicates the limit of descent by the phrase, " obedi-
ent unto death, even the death of the cross." It did not
occur to him to say, " even death spiritual," or " even death
eternal," or " even the death of the damned." It may
safely be concluded that such extreme phrases are not
required for a correct statement of the true doctrine, and
that it will suffice to say in general terms that Christ
suffered in body and soul all that it was possible for a holy
being to suffer. This general statement leaves the question
open, whether the personal holiness of Christ did not fix
a limit beyond which His experience of suffering could not
go, even as it set bounds to His experience of temptation.
That it did fix such a limit seems beyond question. To
speak of the holy One of God as enduring spiritual and
eternal death, is surely a gross and mischievous abuse of
terms ! Instead of following the example of Protestant

• Vid. Appendix, Note D. s Heb. ii. 9.

34^ ^^ HtLmiliation of Christ.

scholastic theologians in the use of such expressions, we
ought rather to regard such use as an instructive illustra-
tion of the danger to which the dogmatic spirit exposes us
of wresting Scripture, and manufacturing facts in support
of a preconceived theory. Happily all theologians have not
)'ielded to the temptation in connection with the present
topic, some having handled it with due care, caution, and
discrimination: among whom the American divines already
named deserve honourable mention,^ but foremost of all,
the great Transatlantic theologian of last century, President
Edwards, whose statement on the question, in what sense
Christ suffered the wrath of God, deserves and will repay
the most attentive study of all who desire to think justly
on the delicate theme. ^

Summing up, then, the elements of value in our Lord's
atoning death as inductively ascertained from Scripture,
we get this formula, expressed in mathematical language,
though the thing to be estimated is a moral quantity not
admitting of mathematical measurement: The value of
Christ's sacrifice was equal to His divine dignity, multiplied
by His perfect obedience, multiplied by His infinite love,
multiplied by suffering in body and soul carried to the utter-
most limit of what a sinless being could experience. That
is to say, in forming an estimate of the fitness of that sacri-
fice to satisfy justice, we must bear in mind from what a
height the Priest who offered it descended, the spirit of filial
obedience in which the self-emptied One fulfilled His
ministry after He had assumed the form of a servant, the
mind of lowly love to the sinful which brought Him down
from heaven, and made Him willing to descend as near
hell as was barely possible; and finally, the curriculum of
suffering through which He passed in His state of humili-
ation, terminating in the cross, with its pain and shame,
and gloom and desolation. All these things the First

' Vid. Systematic Theolo^, vol. ii. p. 614; and The Atonenujit, cap. v. Mr.
Dale can hardly be reckoned among this class. He msists on taking Christ's com-
plaint of desertion in the most literal sense, and represents the Redeemer as en-
during that loss of fellowship with the divine blessedness, that exile from the joys
of God's presence, which is the effect of the Divine wrath in the case ot the impen-
itent. — Tl^-? Atonement, p. 61, 7lh edition.

« Vid. Appendix, Note E.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 349

Cause and Last End of all took into account; and, taking
them into account, He was well pleased with His Son's per-
formance. All these things we, too, are to take into ac-
count, in endeavouring to say Amen to the divine judgment
concerning the sacrifice offered on Calvary. And when we
have duly weighed them all, we find the saying of a cordial
Amen no hard matter. A mediaeval mystic gave utter-
ance to the striking thought, that in order to the fulness
of the satisfaction it was necessary that there should be as
great humiliation in the expiation as there was presump-
tion in the transgression.^ That requirement is met by
the Scripture doctrine, for it was One in the form of God
who stcioped to die. The other elements of value com-
mend themselves equally to our minds. When we learn
that Christ's obedience to God and His love to man enter
into the worth of His sacrifice, we no longer rebel against
the doctrine as one of immoral tendency, putting salva-
tion within the reach of selfish men who simply regard
Christ as their substituted victim; for we perceive that a
spiritual appreciation of the ethical value of the atonement
as a manifestation of the Redeemer's holiness and love is
of the essence of faith in Him as the Saviour. Then, finally,
the doctrine commends itself to our consciences in this,
that while giving due prominence to these moral elements,
it does not trifle with the penal aspect of the question, but
represents the Saviour as undergoing suffering limited only
by His inviolable holiness, limited in one direction only to
be enhanced in others.

How different the moral effect of the scriptural formula,
as above ascertained, from that produced by any formula
intended to make out an atonement sufficient in respect of
the mathematical quantum of suffering as the all-important
matter, such an one, e.g., as that proposed by Philippi !

' Richard of St. Victor, De Verba Incarnato, cap. viii. Richard uses the
thought as an argument for the divinity of Christ. His words are: Ad plenitu-
dinem autem satisfactionis oportuitut tanta esset humiUatio in expiatione quanta
fuerat praesumptio in praevaricatione. Rationalis autem substantiae Dens tenet
summum, homo vero imum. Quando ergo homo praesumpsit contra Deura, facta
est elatio de imo ad summum, Oportuit ergo ut ad expiationis remedium fieret
humiliatio de summo ad imum, sed hoc omnino non potuit nisi aliqua in Trinitate
personarum.

35o The Humiliation of Christ.

Christ, according to this modern expounder of old Luther-
an orthodoxy, suffered eternal death as fully and as really
as the damned, the only difference being- that He, as God,
was able to suffer intensively, in a brief space of time,
what the weak capacity of ordinary human nature re-
quires to be extended, in the case of the damned, over an
unending period of time. In this way the eternal death
endured by Christ intensively was strictly equal to the
eternal death endured inextcnso by any one sinner. Then
the impersonality of Christ's human nature is brought in as
a factor, by which the eternal death of Christ is made equal
to the sum of the eternal deaths, actual or possible, of all
mankind. To the Socinian objection, that even if it be ad-
mitted that Christ could endure eternal death, yet at most
He endured only one eternal death, while ex hypotkesiihQVQ
wsre as many eternal deaths to endure as there are single
human individuals, this theologian reckons it a good reply
to say, that Christ did not endure eternal death as a single
common man, as one among many, but as the God-man,
" who weighs more than all;" the point intended to be in-
sisted on by the phrase within inverted commas being, not
the dignity of the sufferer, but the impersonality of His hu-
manity in virtue of which He is Man, not an individual
man: manhood multiplied by Godhead was to make His
humanity, not ethically, but metaphysically, equal to the
sum of individuals bearing human nature. Thus the re-
sulting formula is, divine capacity of suffering multiplied by
the impersonality, multiplied by the intensively endured
eternal death, equals the sum of the eternal deaths endur-
able in cxtcnso of all the damned, and of all those liable to
damnation.^ A revolting equation, at once metaphysically
inconceivable and morally offensive, degrading the suffer-
ings of the Redeemer into a mere literal quid pro quo, and
exhibiting His atoning death in the aspect least fitted to
show forth the divine glory, to satisfy human consciences,
or to become a moral power over human hearts. They
are not the friends of a great truth, who present it in so re-
pulsive a form. Even in the scholastic period of Protes-
tant orthodoxy, Cotta, -the learned editor of Gerhard's Loci
' Kirchliche Glaiibenslehre, Theil iv. 2te Halfte, p. 32.

The Flumiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 36 1

while claiming for himself the character of a sound Luther-
an, yet found it necessary to explain that it must be taken
with a grain of salt when theologians teach that Christ
suffered in His soul infernal pains; and that the statement
must be understood to refer, not to the very pains which the
damned experience, but rather to the gravity of His pains,
which can be compared with that of infernal torments.*
Modern Lutherans of the Philippi type seem bent on serving
up to their contemporaries a rc'cJiaiiffe oi antiquated opin-
ions, without the grain of salt deemed by Cotta necessary
to make them palatable; with what result it is not diffi-
cult to foresee.

When the Redeemer breathed out His soul on the cross,
His humiliation had reached its climax, if it did not then
take end. The interval between death and the resurrection
the Reformed confessions reckon to the state of exinanition;
but they view it simply as a natural sequel to the death,
and speak of it soberly as consisting in Christ's continuing
under the power of death for a time. This sobriety has not
been imitated by all theologians. What took place during
the time when the Saviour's body rested in the tomb, has
been the subject of an immense amount of curious and un-
profitable speculation, based on a few obscure texts of
Scripture. Into the ghostly questions relating to the tri-
dinnn I have no space to enter, and, I must in honesty add,
small inclination. To this dark region may be applied the
word of prophecy concerning Babylon in ruins, " Owls shall
dwell there." Instead, therefore, of flitting about like a
theological night-bird in the territory of the dead, where
nothing can be distinctly seen or known, I shall conclude
this lecture with a brief summary of the theories concern-
ing Christ's redeeming work, to which, in its course, I have
had occasion to allude. One advantage which has come
to us unsought from the study of that work from our chosen

' Cotta's words are: Atque ex his, quae modo diximur, satis patet. cum grano
salis accipiendum esse quando theologi protestantes docent Christum in anima sua
dolores infernales passum esse. Neque enim hoc de iis ipsis doloribus quos dam-
natiexperiuntur, sed potius de gravitate dolorum, qui cum infemaliljus comparari
possunt, mtelligendum est. ( VUi. Dissertatio secunda. De siatibus et officio
Chris ti mediatorio.)

352 The Humiliation of Christ.

point of view, is the suggestion of a method of classifying
theories of atonement or redemption. The value of a good
method of classification in all departments of knowledge is
universally acknowledged. When classification is wholly
neglected, science degenerates into mere fact-knowledge,
devoid of intellectual interest; when the classification is
defective, facts are wrongly assorted, resemblances being
overlooked, and differences unduly magnified, or vice versa.
These evils are not without exemplification in the present
department of knowledge. The recent literature on the
doctrine of atonement presents reviews of theories more or
less elaborate, in many respects valuable, yet less instruc-
tive than they might have been, because the theories criti-
cised are simply enumerated in an almost casual order, and
opinions of certain writers are noticed as distinct theories,
which are in reality simple varieties of one and the same
theory ^

The scheme of classification put into our hands as the
spontaneous result of the inquiries in which we have been
engaged in this lecture is as follows: —

1. Christ, we have seen, suffered as a prophet for right-
eousness' sake, and there is a theory which regards His
sufferings solely from this point of view. On this theory,
our Lord's sufferings, including His death, were simply in-
cidental to His prophetic office, as exercised in this evil
world; and their redemptive power lies in this, that they
exhibit Christ as a fellow-combatant for truth and right,
and show us that fellowship with God is independent of
outward happiness, and so prevent our peace of mind from
being disturbed by the mistaken notion that all suffering is
on account of sin. This is substantially the view held in
common by Socinus, Robertson, and Ritschl. It may be
distinguished as the prophetic theory.

2. Christ, we have seen, as a priest acting for men before
God, needed to have an experience fitted to develop and
reveal sympathy, and so to gain the confidence of those
whom He represents. There is a theory which looks on
the sympathy of Christ manifested in a suffering, sorrow-

» This remark applies, to a certain extent, to the work of Professor Crav^ford.

The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect, 35

ful experience, as the whole of His performance, and the
source of all His redeeming power. In this theory suffering
is not an incident, but a chief end oi the Incarnation. Christ
not only suffered inevitably by coming into contact with
the evil of the world, but came into the world for the ex-
press purpose of revealing divine love through self-sacrifice
carried to its utmost limit, in order to gain moral influence
over men for their spiritual good. This view was first
formally propounded by Abelard, and its most distinguished
modern expounder is Bushnell. It may be named the
sympathetic theory.

3. Christ, we have seen, as the priestly representative
of men before God, performs acts which have validity for
the whole community: the one sanctifying the whole. We
have seen also that, under a certain aspect, Christ's priestly
action may legitimately be regarded as including Himself.
Now there is a theory which holds that Christ's priestly
activity in its whole compass, and under all its aspects, is
inclusive of Himself; that He does nothing for us which
He does not do for Himself; that whatever He does for us,
He does by first doing it for Himself; that He sanctifies the
whole lump of humanity by sanctifying Himself as the
first-fruits. On this theory, Christ's death is simply the
crown of a life of obedience, in which He maintained an
absolutely unbroken fellowship with His Father, and pre-
sented the ideal which all believers must strive to have
realized in themselves. This view many of the Fathers
entertained, without intending it as an exhaustive account
of Christ's work; and in modern times it has been advocated
as the true theory of redemption under various forms, by
Schleiermacher, Irving, and Maurice. It may be called the
theory of redemption by sample.

4. Christ, we have seen, was not only a priest, but a
sacrificial victim; in the latter capacity acting not as a
representative, but a substitute, bearing the world's sin
imputed to Him, that sinners might be made the righteous-
ness of God in Him. In connection with this branch of our
subject we found it convenient to distinguish a twofold
imputation — a subjective imputation of sin to Christ by Him-
self, and an objective imputation of sin to Him by the First

3-4 ^^^^ Huviiliatioji of Christ.

Cause and Last End of all. The former sort of imputation
we found recognised by parties who deny the latter; their
theory being, that Christ imputed to Himself, as a partaker
of humanity, the world's sin, to the extent of making a
sorrowful confession of it, which was accepted by God as a
confession by humanity, and therefore as a ground of for-
giveness. This theory assumes that it is not necessary, in
order to pardon, that the penalty of sin be endured, ade-
quate coiifcssion of sin being an alternative method of satis-
fying the claims of divine holiness. Its principal, we may
almost say its sole, advocate is M'Leod Campbell. It may
be distinguished as the theory of redemption by Christ's
self-impiitation of sin, or, by perfect confession of sin.

5. The fifth and last theory is the Catholic one of redemp-
tion by substitute, which, in addition to the subjective im-
putation of sin to Himself by Christ, and to the imputation
of sin to Him by believers in their prayers and praises, both
admitted by those who take exception to the received
doctrine,' teaches, over and above, a corresponding objective
imputation of sin to the Redeemer by the Supreme Ruler
of the world, the ground at once of Christ's action in im-
puting human sin to Himself, of our action in imputing our
sins to Him, and of God's action in imputing righteousness
to us. This theory, like the rest, has assumed various
forms in the hands of its advocates; some exaggerating
the penalty endured by Christ as the sin-bearer, with a
view to mathematical identity, supposed to be required
by the principle on which the theory is based; others atten-
uating the penalty to a mere symbol or form; while others,
again, have striven to steer a medium course between two
extremes, laying emphasis not on the quantity or the quality
of the Saviour's sufferings, but on their design; yet pointing
out, in the interest both of divine justice and of divine love,
that these sufferings went to the utmost limit of what it
was possible for a holy being to endure.

While advocating the last-named theory, still entitled
by comparison to be called the Catholic, I have not found
it necessary to repudiate as utterly false all those preced-
ing. I have been able to recognise each in succession as a

• See Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 450 to thq end.

The Hjimiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 355

fragment of the truth, one aspect of the many-sided wis-
dom of God revealed in the earthly ministry of His eternal
Son. In this fact I find great comfort, with reference both
to my own theological position on this great theme, and
to that of many who occupy a different position. For, on
the one hand, it is a presumption in favour of the Catholic
doctrine, that it does not require to negative rival theories,
except in so far as they are exclusive and antagonistic;
and, on the other hand, one may hope that theories which
have been a partial truth will bless their advocates by the
truth that is in them, connecting them in some way with
Him who is the fountain of life, and initiating a process of
spiritual development which will carry them, on to higher
things. It is not impossible, it is not even uncommon, to
grow to Catholic orthodoxy from the meagrest, even from
Socinian, beginnings. Such was the way in which the
apostles themselves, the first inspired authoritative teachers
of the faith, attained to the elevated view-point from which
they surveyed Christ's work on earth, when they had reached
the position in the Church which their Lord designed them
to occupy. Their first lesson in the doctrine of the cross
did not rise above the watchword of the Socinian theory:
*' the righteous One suffering for righteousness' sake, and
setting therein an example to all His disciples; " and not
till long after, did they attain insight into the meaning of
the baptismal name given by the Baptist to Jesus: " The
Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Let
this fact ever be borne in mind by all to whom that name is
fraught with peace and provocative of ardent love, and it
will help them to maintain an attitude of patience, hope,
and charity towards many who reject with determined un-
belief, yea, with bitter scorn, truths dear to their own
hearts.

APPENDIX.

LECTURE I.

Note A. — Page 15.

It is not my intention to attempt a complete history of
the interpretation of this famous passage, which has occu-
pied the thoughts of commentators and theologians in all
ages. Those who desire full information on the history of
opinion may consult, besides the leading commentaries,
Tholuck's Disputatio Christologica de loco Paitli Ep. ad Phil.
c. ii. 6-9, or Ernesti's monograph on the same passage in
the TheologiscJic Stndiemiiid Kritiken (1848, viertes Heft), in
which the various methods of interpreting the passage are
carefully classified, and an attempt made to explain it by
the hypothesis of an allusion being intended by the apostle
to the second and third chapters of Genesis. What I pro-
pose here is simply to jot down a few notes on particular
expressions, and first on the phrase, Iv i.iop<py Qsov.

What is signified by /.lopcpr) &sov ? The Fathers, as is
stated in the text, generally took uopq)// as equivalent to
cpvdii, their anxiety being to find in the passage an unequiv-
ocal testimony to the divinity of Christ. The only excep-
tion is Hilary, who vacillates on the point, as also on the
question closely bound up therewith: whether the forma
Dei was renounced or retained in the state of humiliation.
In some places Hilary follows the ordinary patristic view,
and in others he departs from it. A full list of the relative
passages, and an instructive discussion of their import, will
be found in Thomasius, Christi Person wid Werk, ii. pp. 174-
189. Thomasius thus states the fact as to Hilary's opinion:
"Usually he distinguishes strictly between /<?r;«^ servi 2.\\A
forma Dei, as in ix. 14 {De Trinitate), and also between

360 The Hu7niliation of Christ.

human nature and for' ma scrvi. Forma Dei is for him the
glory-form of God, the form of appearance which belongs
to the Son, in virtue of His likeness in essence to the
Father. Forma et vultus et facies et imago non differunt,
De Trill, viii. 44, 45. It is the stamp of the characteristic
expression and impression (Aus- und Abdruck) of the God-
head of the Father: quod signatum in Dei forma est, hoc ne-
cesse est totum in se coimaginatum habere quod Dei est; on
the other hand, forma servi is the Jiabitiis Jiiunamts, forma
hominis, hiimilitas; not, however, so as if the appearing
form were abstracted from the essence, but both go to-
gether in Hilary's view: the human nature in its earthly
limited definiteness, the divine nature in the form of mani-
festation essential to it. Therefore speaks he thus at one
time: The evaciiatio forma Dei \s not evaciiatio naturae, sitb-
stantiae; at another time: ut vero assumpsisse formam servi
nihil aliud est, quam hominem natum esse, ita in forma Dei
esse non aliud est, quam Deum esse; therefore he speaks
now of a real renunciation of the forma Dei in the incarna-
tion, the contrast to which is intcritus naturae; and anon de-
clares that the forma Dei preserved itself, to a certain
extent, in the evaciiatio, in which case the forma is identi-
fied with the essence" (p. 174). Among the principal
passages bearing on Hilary's opinions on the two con-
nected questions as to the meaning of forma Dei, and
the retention or renunciation of the forma Dei in the state
of exinanition, are the following. I place first those which
imply a distinction between form and nature, and an ex-
change of divine form for human form in the state of
humiliation. De Trinitate, ix. 51: Y^^x forma ]2.vc\ non erat,
quia per ejus exinanitionem servi erat forma suscepta.
Neque enim defecerat natura, ne esset; sed in se humilita-
tem terrenae nativitatis manens sibi Dei natura susceperat,
generis sui potestatem in habitu assumptae humilitatis ex-
ercens. ix. 38: Exinaniens se igitur ex Dei forma, servi
formam natus susceperat, sed hanc carnis assumptionem
ea, cum qua sibi naturalis unitas erat, Patris natura, non
senserat. viii. 45: Exinanivit se ex Dei forma, id est ex eo
quod aequalis Deo erat. On the other side, inclining to
the ordinary patristic view, are the following passages: —

Appendix. — Lecture I. — Note A. 361

xi. 48: In forma Dei manens formam servi assumpsit, non
demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens, et intra se latens, et
intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem. Form is here
taken as equal to nature, therefore it remains in the servile
state, xii. 6: Christus enim in forma Dei manens formam
servi accepit. . . . Esse autem in forma Dei non alia intel-
ligentia est, quam in Dei manere nahira. Passing on to
modern times, we find that the tendency among all interpre-
ters, and specially those who regard the kenosis as con-
sisting in an exchange of the form of God for the form of a
servant, is to identify nopcprf Qeov with the 86^a to which
Jesus alluded in His intercessory prayer (John xvii. 5).
Thus Thomasius: "That f.iopq)v is equivalent neither to
ov6ia, nor to (pi'di?, nor to status, but signifies its forma,
the appearance with which anything shows itself, may
be regarded as the common result of modern exegesis.
Mop<pr} Qeov is therefore, as Meyer expresses it, the condi-
tion-form corresponding to the essence and exhibiting the
condition (die Zustandsform, dem Wesen entsprechend und
den Zustand darstellend), or, more strictly, the glory-form
answering to the essence of God (die dem Wesen Gottes
entsprechende Herrlichkeitsgestalt), or, as Wiesinger puts
it, the glory of the divine form of existence, distinguished
from the 86ca (John xvii. 5), only thereby, that here the
appearance of this glory before the world is conceived as in-
cluded, as is evident from the contrast of i.iop(py) 8ovXov" (vol.
ii. p. 150). Ebrard, however dissents from this view, and
contends that ixopq>T} and Sola, are not to be identified. z/Jla,
he says, " is not=uop(pj} &eov, (a) in respect of the sense of
the words, /lo'^a always denotes an outward glory an-
swering to the inward essence, a concrete, never the im-
mediate, existence-form of the essence itself Form and
HerrlicJikeit are very different even in German, {b') If it is
said that 5o|a is not indeed equivalent to uiop<prj^ but is equiv-
alent to uopcpr] 0soi^; it signifies, not the abstract idea of ex-
istence-form, but that definite existence-form which the
Son had before the Incarnation, it must be said in reply,
that John xvii. 22 is against this view, where Christ denotes
His inner glory which He had not laid aside in the Incar-
nation, and had given to the disciples by the term 86^a, and

362 The Humiliation of Christ.

distinguishes it from the S6ia which He had laid aside, and is
about to get back. ^6c,a is therefore not=juop(pi} 0eov, is
not the name for this one definite existence-form, but is
the name for every kind of glory, (r) Paul (Rom. viii. 17;
Phil. ii. 9) denotes by the term So^a the outer glory which
forms the adequate appearance of an inner essence, i.e. the
state of the glorification or transfiguration of the blessed at
the resurrection, both of Christ and of believers. In John
xvii. 5, 24, (5o|a similarly denotes the outer glory which
Christ possessed before the Incarnation, and should again
receive after His resurrection, the worship of angels, recog-
nition as Head and Lord of the world. But in ver. 22 S6ca
is used to denote the inner glory which Christ never re-
nounced. Nowhere is 5o|a: = existence-form." In accord-
ance with this view, Erbrard assigns to j-iopcpi) 0sov, as dis-
tinct from doqa, the specific meaning: divine, that is, eternal
form of existence. This Christ parted with at the Incarna-
tion, not only for a time, but forever. He exchanged once
for all the eternal mode of existence for the time-form.
He became and continues for ever man. See CJiristliche
Dogmatik, vol. ii. 32-37. The view of Liebner is somewhat
similar. He uses the expression /.lopqiy} SovXov as a clue to
the meaning of the other contrasted phrase ^opq>r/ Geon:
" The Hopcpj) SonXov signifies the human existence-form as a
condition of dependence, the existence-form of the creature-
y ethico-religious personality. What, then, is the neces-
sary contrast which is expressed through the phrase ;~iopcpr}
0£ov? Nothing else than the existence-form of absolute
independence, freedom, absolute personality." That is, in
the uopcpij 0EOV the Son of God was not a servant of God,
which He became when He assumed human nature, but an
equal of God (vid. Christologie, p. 327). According to
Nitzsch, the term uopq>r] is used in reference to God, mainly
because it is used in the next clause in reference to human-
ity, to complete the parallelism of thought and language:
*' The direct occasion to use the word uopcp// lay more on
the human than on the divine side, as it belongs to the
essence of man to be an incorporated, sense-endowed,
apparent, shaped, visible personality. But the human form
has the God form for its xiatura.1 antithesis." " The im-

Appendix. — Lecture I. — Note A. 363

portant point," the author adds, "is this: Christ, who in
the ground of His being is the Lord of glory, the Son of
God, whose vocation it is to glorify the Father, and whom
the Father purposes to glorify, in obedience to the Father,
and in love to the Father, and to union with the human
race, and to the glorifying of humanity and of the world along
with Himself, emptied Himself of the brightness {^Klarheit)
which He had in Himself in entering into a Human state of
servitude " {System der ChristlicJien LeJire, p. 260). In affin-
ity with Nitzsch's opinion stands that of Ernesti. " If," he
remarks, " we are to understand by uopcpi] 0sov an outer
appearance-form, shape, then arise these unanswerable
questions: What is the specific form of God in which Christ
found Himself in His pre-existence ? and. What is the
specific form of a servant ? Is it that of men ? Angels
also can be God's servants. We can therefore, in the de-
scription of Christ by the phrase ev Moptp^ Seov vnapx^^y,
recognise only a pictorial expression (Phantasieausdruck)
of the truth, that in His pre-existence He was more than a
servant of God, as men are, vld? rov ©sov in an eminent
sense, the SEvrspoz Qeds of Philo, a pure light-reflection of
God, ELKcov Tov ©Eov, attd must give up the idea of making
this pictorial expression conceptually clear, as also in Gen.
iii. 2 the ysyove c^i ehrnicSv cannot be made conceptually
clear. In short, Christ, being originally more than man
made in God's image, might with more plausibility than Adam
have entertained the thought of acting automatically; but
He denied Himself, renounced this moreness (Mehrseyns),
would only be what man ought to be, a servant of God.
Therefore He remained in conscious dependence on God,
and made Himself like men. The first is the ovh dpTtay/idv
7)yr)6cxTO TO sivai Ida Qe(p; the second, the lavrdv £X£va)6£ "
{Studicn iind Kritiken, 1848, pp. 912, 913). The parallelism
between Christ's behaviour and Adam's, here hinted at and
carried out in all particulars by Ernesti (Adam would be
God, Christ renounces His Godlikeness; Adam suffered
death as a doom, Jesus voluntarily; Adam incurred the
divine curse, Jesus won the divine approval and a great re-
ward, etc.), has not been approved by expositors, and
seems far-fetched. His conception also of Christ's pre-ex-

364 The Humiliation of Christ.

istent state comes short of the standard of orthodoxy. But
his view as to the meaning o{ t-ioptpt), or rather as to the impos-
sibihty of fixing its meaning in precise theological thought,
deserves serious consideration. If any theological fixation
of its meaning be possible, it must be looked for in the
direction pointed out by Ebrard and Liebner; for, as Ebrartl
has shown, the term 8oia hardly suffices to give the neces-
sary definiteness. A similar remark may be made with ref-
erence to the expression n\ov6io'; Jk in 2 Cor. viii. 9. The
word it\ov6io'^ suggests much, but specifies nothing; it points
to a state very diverse from the impoverished condition of
the Lord Jesus in His state of humiliation; but it gives us
no inventory of the riches renounced, no indication of their
nature. The term stimulates our imagination rather than
informs our minds. We may put much meaning into it, ac-
cording to our theological conception ofwhat the Incarnation
involved, but we cannot take much theology out of it by a
reliable and legitimate process of exegesis. We may make
the riches renounced, metaphysical, ethical, or eudamon-
istic, or all three together. The best clue to the nature of
the riches renounced, the glory foregone, the form laid
aside, is the j-wpcpj} dovXov, to which the /iop<pr} Gsov stands
opposed. We have to consider what was involved in this
servile state; and if we find that limitation of divine attri-
butes, such as knowledge, exposure to temptation, liability
to the curse pronounced on man for sin, hardships supply-
ing severe tests of obedience, were all involved in it, and
necessary to its completeness and thoroughness, — then
we may infer that the uopq>i) 0sov forms a contrast to the
f.iopq>7f dovXov in all these respects: in respect to divine attri-
butes (metaphysical), in respect to divine exemption from
moral trial, and in respect to divine felicity; the kenosis,
of course, extending to all, in whatever sense the kenosis
is to be taken, whether as absolute or as relative.

2. Having discussed at length the expression nopcpi) Geov,
it will not be necessary to enter into much additional de-
tail on the correlate expression nopqu} SovXov, having al-
ready anticipated much that relates thereto. In patristic
literature tiopcpi) 8ov\ov signifies human nature, as nopcpr) Oeov
signifies divine nature. Modern interpreters, on the other

Appendix. — Lecture I. — Note A. 36$

hand, are generally agreed that the form of a servant
is not to be immediately identified with human nature,
but points to some attribute of human nature, either acci-
dental or essential. Ebrard understands by the phrase,
not human nature in its ideal integrity, but human nature
as it stands under the consequences of sin. According to
this view, the servant-form is something accidental. Lieb-
ner gives to the phrase the meaning, the human existence-
form, as one of dependence, according to which the attri-
bute denoted is something essential to humanity; for it
pertains to man, irrespective of sin, to be under law to God,
to be God's servant. Meyer's interpretation is substantially
the same. The servant-form signifies the position as a
servant, not of one who serves in general (both God and
man), or of one who serves others (as in Matt. xx. 28), or
of one who is subject to the will of another (indefinitely),
but specially of one who is the servant of God, this being
manifestly implied in the contrast to Iv /lopq)^ Oeov vndpxoov.
As a matter of mere interpretation, Meyer and Liebner are
right; but Ebrard's view is theologically correct. The form
of a servant is, in point of fact, the state of humanity as it
is on earth, subject to death in consequence of sin (vid.
Dogmatik, ii. p. 203).

3. We come now, in the last place, to the puzzling clause,
ovK dpTtayjiwv r/xt'/docro. The question here is. In what sense
is dpnay/xoi to be understood .-' this word being the key to
the interpretation of the clause. Two quite different lines
of interpretation have been followed by interpreters, one
finding in the clause " the assertion^' the other " the sur-
render of privileges," as Canon Lightfoot pithily puts it
{llie Epistle of Paid to the Philippians, 3d ed. p. 131).
'Apitayi.io'i being taken actively to denote plundering, usur-
pation, robbery, the natural meaning of the clause is that
given in our English version, following the Vulgate and
the Latin Fathers, " thought it not robbery to be equal
with God;" that is, was truly and by inherent right God's
equal. This interpretation has the advantage, that it takes
dpTtayuo? in its most natural sense; for certainly the termi-
nation /loi, as is generally conceded, suggests an active
sense. But against it is the weighty consideration, that

3^6 The Humiliation of Christ.

the connection of thought requires another sense — viz. that
borne by apnayixa, praeda, a piece of booty. What we ex-
pect to find the apostle saying is, that Christ, being in the
form of God, did not regard equality in state with God as
a robber regards his booty, — viz. as a thing to be clutched
greedily and held fast at all hazards, — but emptied Him-
self. This accordingly was the view taken of the passage
by many of the Greek Fathers, as Lightfoot in his excursus
has shown; and this fact, by the way, may help us over the
grammatical difficulty supposed to lie in the ending of the
word apitayi^ioi. If the Greek Fathers had no scruple in
rendering the word as if it had been apitayua, this may be
held to prove that no hard and fast line separates the active
from the passive form as to sense. Very many modern in-
terpreters, accordingly, do render the word dpnaynoi as
apnayna, among whom may be mentioned Lightfoot,
EUicott, Alford, Tholuck, Liebner, Ebrard. The remarks
of Ebrard on the passage are specially good. " To regard
anything as booty," he says, " is an intensified double con-
trast to a voluntary renunciation of something which
rightfully belongs to oneself. The disposition of self-seek-
ing regards even foreign property as welcome booty, much
more that which it can rightfully claim. The disposition of
love does not even regard its own lav/ful property as the
robber regards his rapina, but freely gives it away " {Dog-
matik, ii. 34). Meyer, while practically agreeing with the
interpretation given in the text and by the foregoing com-
mentators, yet endeavours to retain for dpnaynoi its proper
active signification. The word, he contends, signifies not
pracda, Geraubtcs, but actively taking prey, Raubcii, Beiite-
viacJien. Therefore the clause must be interpreted thus:
Not as a robbing regarded He the being equal with God,
that is, not under the view-point of gaining booty did He
place the same, as if in respect of His activity it amounted
to this, that He appropriated that which did not belong to
Him (" Demnach ist zu erklaren: nicht als ein Rauben
betrachtete er das gottgleiche Sein. d. h. nicht unter den
Gesichtspunkt des Beutemachens stellte er dasselbe, als
sollte es hinsichtlich seiner Thatigkeits-ausserung ihm darin
bestehen, dass er ihm nicht Eignendes an sich raffete." —

Appendix. — Lechtre I, — Note A. 367

An die Philipper, p. 72). On this interpretation of Meyer's,
Tholuck remarks, comparing it with De Wette's: '* Longe
vere praestantior Meyeri interpretatio, ad quem si omnino
dpTtaxuoi solam potestatem actus rapiendi habet, palma
loci feliciter expediti deferenda videtur. Meyerus enim,
postquam discrimen inter eivai ida ©sqj eivai kv juopq)^ 0eov
nullum esse demonstravit, hunc dicti Paulinisensumstatuit,
' Demnach ist zu erklaren, nicht fiir einen Raub hielt er
das Gottgleichsein, d. h. nicht so sah er die Gottgleichheit
welche er hatte, an, als ware sie ein Verhaltniss des Beute-
machens, als bestehe sie im Ansichreissen fremden Be-
sitzes.' Per se quidem, haec.sententia Deum praedatum ire
seque aliorum bonis locupletare noluisse admodum absona
est, at ratione habita ad oppositum comma septimum non
aliud nisi hoc declarat, tantum abfuisse ut aliorum copiis
ditare voluerit Christus, ut in aliorum commodum divitiis
suis se privaverit, ac ministrorum loco haberi voluerit *
{Dispittatio Christologica, p. 17). That is to say, Meyer's
interpretation, in Tholuck's judgment, amounts to this,
that Christ was so far from enriching Himself with the
goods of others — equality with God being conceived of for
the moment as the property of another to be got only by
robbery — that He willingly parted with His own — this
same equality with God — and became a servant. I confess
that the turn given to the clause by Meyer seems to me
too subtle, and even difficult to understand, and therefore
I much prefer the rendering which has been adopted by
many competent scholars: He did not deem equality with
God a thing to be clutched and held fast at all hazards, as
a robber holds his booty.

LECTURE II.

Note A.— Page 57.

I GIVE in this note all the extracts I have met with in
Cyril's works bearing on the subject of Christ's knowledge,
with a translation, in parallel columns.

The first extract is from Adversiis Anthropomorphitas ,
cap. xiv., the subject of which is, " Of those who say that
the Son knew not the last day, against the Agnoetes."

After arguing against the idea that the asserted ignor-
ance was absolute, or referred to Christ as a divine Being,
Cyril goes on to give his own opinion thus:

I. IlEcpoprjHE fXEv b uoroyey?}?
Aoyoi rov Qeov /XETOC tf/? dvBpo)-
noTTjtoi Hai Ttdvra rd avriji, Sixoc
(.lovrji rrji djuapriai. Msrpoi? de

dvOpCOItOTrjTOi TtpETtEl dv ElHuTOO?,

Mai TO dyvoE7v rd ido/iEva' ov-
xovv xaO' o jiiEV voEirat ©Eoi, oiSe
Ttdvra u6a uai JJarrjp- ««G' o yE
f.iT}v dvQpoaTtoi b ovroi, ovh difo-
dEiEzai TO uai ayvojjdai douEiv

Sid to TtpETtElV T^ dvQp(J0Tl6ri]Tt.

"DjditEp Se ovroi (2y r)Z,oi)r] ndwoov
xai Svyajiiii Tpo(p?}v daojuariKTJv
eSf'jcro, TO rrji uEvoodEooi ovk dri-
/tdQcjy /itEtpov, dvaysypaTtrat Si
xai vTtvmv, uai MoitidGai' ovzco
uai Ttavra EiSooi rr]v npsTtovdav
T^ dvQpooTtorr/ridyrotav ovh epv-
Qpia Ttpodi^E/ioJv Eavrcp. riyovEv
yap avrov ndvra rd riji avBpoo-
Ttorijroi, Sixa uovrji rijid/xapziai.

The only-begotten Word of
God with humanity bore all that
belonged to it, sin excepted. But
to the measures of humanity it
belongs to be ignorant of the
future. Therefore, so far as He
is God, He knows all things as
doth the Father; but in so far as
He is also man, He does not
shake off the appearance of ignor-
ance, because such ignorance is
congruous to human nature. Even
as He, being the Hfe and power
of all, received bodily food, not
despising the measure of the
kenosis (it is recorded also that
He slept and was weary); so He
who knew all was not ashamed to
ascribe to Himself the ignorance
pertaining to humanity. For all
human properties became His,

Appe7idix. — Lecture 11, — Note A.

369

''ETtsiSr/ Ss rd I'ltEp savrovi oi uoc-
(t7]vai /lavOdvsiv l/OeXov, dnriTtrs-
rai j/3?/(j//<Gi3; TO ut) Eidevcxi na^ o
avBpojTtoi, nai q)ij6i, /.n^Ss avrov's
eiSivai zovi year ovpavov ovrai
dyiovi dyyeXovZ, iva urj Xvtcc^v-
rai &5s uj) Oappf/Qsvrei to juv^r?}-
piov.

saving sin. When, therefore, the
disciples wished to learn things
above them, He usefully pretended
not to knoiv, and said that not even
the angels in heaven knew; that
they might not be grieved because
they were not admitted to the
knowledge of the mystery.

The words in italics in English, and the corresponding
words in Greek, show the kernel of Cyril's view.

II. The next passage is from the Apologeticus pro XII.
capitibus contra Orientates, Anathematismus iv. Speaking
of the text in which Jesus is said to have grown in wisdom
as in stature, Cyril remarks, against the Orientals whom he
charged with making Christ two persons, one of whom real-
ly did grow in wisdom:

Ovrs ydp HEpi6ubv Tc3y vTtod-
rddecov jiierd ttjv evcadiv Soyjua-
riliojLiEv, ovrs rr/v zrji 0e6Tr/roi
(pvdtv avq?}dsGJi te xai npoKonfji
SsSEifdOai g^ajUEv ekeIvo Se /idA.-
Xov, uTi Kar' OlKElOOdlV oihovoui-
HTjv kavrov TtEitoiTfrai rd idiar^i
dapHui, djS ddpc, yEyovooi.

For we neither affirm as a dogma
the division of the hypostases after
the union, nor do we say that the
nature of Deity needs increase and
growth; but this rather we hold,
that, by way of an economical ap-
propriation. He made His own the
properties of the flesh, as having
become flesh.

What the economicat appropriation means is more clearly
and fully explained in the next quotation from Quod unus
sit Christus, p. 1332 (Migne):

III. 'O ydp roi docpoi svayyEXid-
rr/s, ddpnayEyovora npoEidEvsy-
xaoy rov yloyov, dEiuvvdiv avrov
oiHovofiiKt^i tqpEvra r^ iSia dap-
ui, did rcjv ryi iSiai cpvdEooi ievai
vouoDv. 'AvBpG07torr/roS Se rd npo-
HuTtrEti^ tdriv ?//l(«/a re xaidoqiia,
qyairjv 5' dv ort xai x^piTi, dvva-
vaitrjdcndrjZ rpoitov zivd roii rov
da'>/xaro? UEzpuii uai riji ev kxdd-
r&} duvEdsQoi. 'Erspa Ss av ev
roii r/Srj rccxidi, nai vtie p r ovr o En.
Hv f.iEV ydp ovK ddvvarov r/yovv

For the wise evangelist, intro-
ducing the Word as become flesh,
shows Him economically submit-
ting Himself to His own flesh and
going through the laws of His own
nature. But it belongs to hu-
manity to increase in stature and in
wisdom, and, I might add, in
grace, intelligence keeping pace
with the measures of the body,
and differing according to age.
For it was not impossible for the
Word born of the Father to have

170

The Humiliation of Christ.

dvicpixrov, ojS 0£cj r&j kn JJavpoi
qtvvri Aoyoj, to evodOev avvc^
ScSjua, Hat ec. avrcSy dTCapydvcov
al'psiv T£ vTpov, xai, eis udrpov
rjXiniaZ ZTJi apricai £^ot'(5?/? dvev-
EyHEiV. ^ab]v 5' ozi xai iv vrjTtio)
docpiav excpf/yai TeQavjiiadju£v?/y
paSiov re uai evr/Xarov rjv avrw'
dXX r)v TO XPVI^OL TEparoTtoiai ov
(I ax pay, nai roli riji olnoyofiiai
X6yoiidydpuo6rov. 'EvEXEiroydp
dipogyr/Ti to nv6Typioy. 'Hq}iEi dr)

OVV OlHOVOUlHcSi TolZ T?ji dvOpOO-
TCOTTJTO's /.lEZpOli Ecp' iaVT(2 TO

KpaTElv.

raised the body united to Himself
to its full height from the very
swaddling-clothes. I would say
also, that in the babe a wonderful
wisdom might easily have appeared.
But that would have approached
the thaumaturgical, and would
have been incongruous to the
laws of the economy. For the
mystery was accomplished noise-
lessly. Therefore He economi-
cally allowed the measures of
humanity to have power over
Himself.

The accommodation to the laws of the economy, according
to this passage, consisted in this: in stature, real growth;
in wisdom, apparent growth. The wonderful wisdom was
there from the first, but it was not allowed to appear
(tHcpT/yai), to avoid an aspect of monstrosity. That the
growth in wisdom was simply graduated manifestation of
an already present perfect knowledge, appears clearly in
the next extract. It is from Advcrs?/s Nestoriiim, p. 154.

Alluding to the interpretation put by Nestorius on the
text Luke ii. 52, viz. that a real growth in knowledge was
meant, Cyril, after pointing out the absurdity of such an
idea from the divine i^oint of view, goes on to express his
own opinion thus:

IV. Ovuovy ISe/x^}/ <y'' avtadiy
dr/Bii TE XPVI^'-^ ^^'- ~EToy, xai
TtEpiEpyiai dqiov, Ei fSps'cpo? (Sv

ETl, OsOTtpETtT/ Tlji doq)iai ETtOlElTO

TTfy EvdEiqiv Hard (Spaxv ds xai
dyaXoyooi t^ tov dajjuazoi ?//\.tx/a
xaTEvpvvGoy avTrjv, EUcpavt} te
aitadi xaQidrwv, npoxoitTEiv ay
XeyoiTo, xai udXa Eixozooi.

Therefore there would have
been shown to all an unwonted
and strange thing, if, being yet
an infant. He had made a de-
monstration of His wisdom worthy
of God; but expanding it gradually
and in proportion to the age of the
body, and (in this gradual man-
ner) making it manifest to all,
He might be said to increase (in
wisdom) very appropriately.

The same idea is expressed with, if possible, still greater
clearness in the next extract, which is taken from Ad
reginas de recta fide oratio altera, cap. xvi. :

Appendix. — Lecture IL — Note A.

371

V. *' To Se TtaiSiov jjvcavE, >cai
inpazaiovvo nvev/^iavt, nXijpov-
/.lEvov docpiai- xai x^'P'5 &eov T/V
krc avr(2." Kai ndXiv "■'Ii/dovi
TtpoEHonzev -ijXiyiiq. nal doqiiq. xai
xdpiTi &£i^Hai drOpojTtoii." "Eva
XeyovTEirovKvpiov Tiiii(3v^Irj6ovv
Xpidrov, xai aijTcS TtpodvE'/uovTEi
rd TE dvBpooniva xai BEOTCpEitrj,

TOli I-IEV vfji XEVGodEOOi /.lETpOli

■KpETtEiv dXrfiwi dialjEftaioviJ.EQa
To TE TTjv doo/J.aTixrjv avqrjdiv kiti-
dex^dBai, xai /.njv xai to xpazat-
ovdBai, Toov tov doS/iiaToi dSpvvo-
jusvaov jiiopioov xaTa fipaxv' xai
avTO ds TO SoxEiv TtXiipovdQai do-
q}iai, Sid ys to oiovEi npoi tniSo-
div T-g TovdoDuaToi ijXunoL itpETtoa-
8EdrdT7jy ZTJi Evovdj/i avTcS doq^iai
dvacpoirdv tt'/v kxqiavdiv xai
Tavri jLiiy, cSi sqiTjv, Ty UETd dap-
xoi oIhovojuio. nparcoi dv, xai ro25
zi/i vcpedEODi HETpo\i.

"But the boy increased and
waxed strong in spirit, being
filled with wisdom, and the grace
of God was upon Him." And
again: " Jesus increased in stature
and wisdom, and in favour with
God and men." In affirming
our Lord Jesus Christ to be one,
and assigning to Him both divine
and human properties, we truly
assert that it was congruous to
the measures of the kenosis, on
the one hand, that He should
receive bodily increase and grow
strong, the parts of the body grad-
ually attaining their full develop-
ment; and, on the other hand^
that He should seem to be filled
with wisdom, in so far as the
manifestation of the wisdom dwell-
ing within Him proceeded, as by
addition, most congruously to
the stature of the body; and this,
as I said, agreed with the economy
of the Incarnation, and the meas-
ures of the state of humiliation.

Here, again, observe that the growth in the body is real,
the growth in the mind only apparent, — a growth in the
sense of graduated manifestation made to correspond with
the age of the body, so that no more wisdom might appear
than suited the time of life, such correspondence being re-
quired by propriety or decency.

The next two quotations are from Thesaunts, Assertiones
xxii. xxviii. I take the latter first, as referring to the same
subject as the last, the growth of the child Jesus in wisdom.
Thesaurus, p. 428:

VI. ^vdtxo? Tti vojuo? ovx k-Jtl-
TpETtEi Toy dvOfjoorcov r?}? Tovdoo-
fiaToir'/Xixia'} (Sd/Cep/iiEil^ova itoXv
xrjv q>p6vTidiv EX^iy aXXd dvvT-
pEX^^ Ttooi xai y tv rjuiv duvEdii,
xai dvfifiaSi^Et zponov Tivd Taii
TOV dcojuaroi Ttpoxonali. Hv ovv

A certain physical law forbids
man having more wisdom than
corresponds to the stature of the
body: our understanding runs
and keeps pace pari passu with
the growth of the corporeal frame.
Now the Word became flesh, as

372

The H2imiliatio}i of Christ.

6 AoyoZ Ev dapxi yEvoi-iEvoi av-
QpaoTtoi xaOd yeypaytrai- nai r]v
rdXeto?, doqiia rov Ilarpoi uai
SuvajJi? c6v. ErcsiS)} de rep vijZ qtv-
6eGoi i'jj.iwv eOei Trapaxoopsiv noai
^XPV^y ^Va /.it} Ti cEvov Ttapd rol?
6pm6t r 01.1160^, coi drBpooTCoi, nard
Ppaxv Ttpoi avir/v iuvroi rov 6oo-
fiaroi, dneKaXvitrev kavrov nai
odrji-iEpai doqioorspoi napd roii
6p(a<3ivr/ KaiaKovovoiv £q)aLV£ro.
. . . on jcapd ro2? opmdt 6oq3CDTE-
poi aei Ticx.i ja'pie'cJrf/aoS r)v, npo-
KoifrEiv Ei'prjVLXi, cJs evtevBev j/Sij
TT/v tgSv Bavfia.^6vvoov itpoHon-
TEiv E^tr, T/ r/}v avrov.

it is written, and was perfect,
being tlie wisdom and power of
God. But seeing it was in a
sense necessary that He should
adapt Himself to the custom of
our nature, lest He should be
reckoned something strange as
man by those who saw Him,
while His body gradually advanced
in growth He concealed Himself,
and appeared daily wiser to those
who saw and heard Him; . . .
because He was ever wiser and
more gracious in the esteem of
beholders, He is said to have
grown in wisdom and grace, so
that His growth is to be referred
rather to the habit of those who
wondered at His wisdom than to
Himself

Here it is taught that Christ's growth in wisdom was
simply a holding back, or concealment, of wisdom existing
in perfection from the first, out of respect to the physical
law, according to which, in ordinary men, body and mind
keep pace in their growth.

The other passage in the Thesaurus (Assertio xxii. 220-
224) is too long to quote in full, and after the foregoing it
is not necessary to give it in cxtenso. The author's view
will appear sufficiently from selected sentences. The sub-
ject of discussion is the profession of ignorance made by
Jesus with reference to the day and hour:

VII. Ovyi ayvoQDV o Xuyo? ovk
oiSa. cpr/d/i^, dXXd 8eihvvcov ev
iavT^ xai to dvBpoonivov, &j ud-
Xtdra TtpsTtEi to dyvoEiv . . .
*En£i8rf ydp rf/v r]U(Sv itEpiEfSd-
Xeto ddpxa, did rovro nai ttjv
TfU^v dyvoiav e'xeiv Edx^jnocri-
Zeto. ... (P. 373.)
^AyvoElv Si Xkyoov, naBo riSv
dyvoEiv TCEqiVHoroov, drjXovori
dvOpaJTtGov, Tijv djdoiaXiiv Ive8v-
6(XTo. (IMd.)

Not as being ignorant the Word
sqvs I know not, but showing in
Himself the human, to which
ignorance is very specially con-
gruous. For since He clothed
Himself with our flesh, He af-
fected to have (put on the fashion
of) our ignorance. . , ,

In saying that He was ignor-
ant, He put on the likeness of
those whose nature it is to be
ignorant, viz. men.

Appendix. — Lecture II. — Note A.

373

"fldmp ovv ^vyHBxoopT/KEv kav-
t6v cji avOpooTtov yevouEvov U£-
ra dvQpGOTtGOv xal Ttsiv-^v nai
Sirpf/v, Mai zd dXXa 7td6x£iy ditep
Eiprfvai TCEpi avTov, rov aurov djj
rpoitov aHoXovdov jui/ dxavdaXi-
^EdQai Kciv ooidi'BpantoiXey^, /.lET
nvOpwTCGJV dyvoElv, on rr/v av-
rrjv 7//UIV ecpupsds ddpuoc. OiSe
uev ydp coi docpia nai Aoyoi gov
kv Uarpv ur/ siSe'vai de cprjdi Sl'
t/udb nai /ueO^ 7//<oJr oJs dvBpoonoi.
(P- 373)-

With reference to the question,
' ' Whom do men say that I the
Son of man am ? " Cyril remarks

OuKovv oixovouEh ri itoWani<i
rf/i dyvoiai to dx'tjucc-

Further on, Cyril adduces the
question put by Jesus to the dis-
ciples, "How many loaves have
ye ? " where ignorance was cer-
tainly only affected, to prove that
dacp(3i oi'novoniy.m'i edQ' ore zrjv
dyvoiav dXTJjJ'OcriZousi'oi o^oori'jp.
A few sentences further on he
says, with reference to the ignor-
ance of the day and hour:

OiHovo/nEi ydp rot Xpidtoi ui)
eiSsvat Xeycov rrjv oopav £Heiv?/v,
nai ovK dXr^Ocji dyvoeC.

As, then, He allowed Himself,
as become man, to hunger and
thirst with men, and to suffer the
other things which are said con-
cerning Him; in the same way it
follows that we ought not to be
scandalized, when, as man. He
says that He is ignorant along with
men, because He bore the same
flesh with us. For as Wisdom
and as the Logos in the Father
He knew; but He strys that He
knew not on our account and
along: with us as man.

Therefore He often puts on
economically the fashion of {i. e.
simulates) ignorance.

that the Saviour manifestly some-
times economically puts on the
fashion of ignorance.

For Christ acts economically
in saying that He does not know
that hour, and is not really
ignorant.

The last extract has reference to the same subject,
Christ's profession of ignorance concerning the day and
hour. It is from the Apologeticus contra Theodoretuin pro
XII. capitibus (Anathematismus iv. p. 416):

Vin. Kai ELitEp Edriv Eii tb nai And if He is one and the same

6 avvoi did TO rrji dXrjQovi kvoo- in virtue of the true unity of

dEGoi xpvf^^t ^^^ ovu ETspo'; xut natures, and is not one and an-

ETEpoi 8i-^pr]f.ievooi TB xai dvd HE- Other (two persons) disjunctively

poi, avTov Ttdvrooi sdrai uai to and partitively, to Him will belong

eiSivai xaz /<£> rot uai to ht} EiSe- both to know and to seem not to

374 ^^- HuKiiliatiou of CJirist.

vaiSoHElv. OvHovv Olds uiy xai know. Therefore He knows on

avrdi QEiH(3i oJ? 6oq)ia zov liar- the divine side as the Wisdom of

pds. 'ETtEiStj de ro riji dyvoovdtji the Father. But since He sub-

av^pooTtoryjroZ vneSv fierpov, oi- jected Himself to the measure of

HovouiKwi oiKEiovrat nai rovro humanity, He economically ap-

^trd rcSv dXXoav, nai roi, naOd- propriates this also with the rest,

Tcsp £q)?jv dpviooz, i^yvorjuca'; ov- although, as I said a little ago,

dEv, dXV EiSods ditavraidErd rov being ignorant of nothing, but

Uarpoi. knowing all things with the Father.

Neander, commenting on this passage, very justly re-
marks that Cyril expresses himself in words to which he
could hardly attach any definite meaning. What Cyril
does say, however, is not so utterly devoid of meaning as
the words which are put into his mouth by the English
translator of Neander (Bohn's edition), which are absolute-
ly unintelligible, owing to a misrendering of the German
original. The sentence beginning with 'EtteiS?) Ss is thus
rendered: "When Christ subjected Himself to the general
mass of human nature, which is limited in its knowledge,
He appropriated t/ii's part of it also by a special economy,
although still He had no bounds to His knowledge, but
was, with the Father, omniscient." It is evident that in
using the word mass (printed in italics as here given), the
translator has mistaken the German word Mass, measure
{jusrpov), for Masse, mass (Neander's Church History, vol.
iv. p. 151).

LECTURE III.

Note A.— Page 85.

In tracing the origin of the Lutheran Christology to the
controversy concerning the Supper, I am aware that the
leading modern authorities of all schools, Dorner, Thoma-
sius, Schneckenburger, Baur, agree in asserting that
Luther's views of the person of Christ, in their main
features, were fixed before the Sacramentarian dispute
began. Dorner's opinions on the point are accessible to
all, and need not be quoted (see Doctrine of the Person
of Christy div. ii. vol. ii. p. 53 ff.). Thomasius {CJiristi
Person iind Werk, ii. p. 13) says that the controversy with
the Swiss only gave Luther the occasion for the construc-
tion of his Christology, the innermost motive lying, not in
the doctrine of the Supper, but in the two great moments
of his faith, living confidence in the historical fact of re-
demption, and actual communion with the living Christ,
and, in Him, with God. Schneckenburger ( Vergleichends
Darstellung, ii. p. 193) says: *' The dogma of the person of
Christ became a subject of dispute in the first decade of the
Reformation, through the difference on the subject of the
Supper. But it must not therefore be imagined that the
diverse conception of the person of Christ was simply a
secondary, auxiliary theory, designed to justify that differ-
ence. The difference in reference to the Supper was rather
only the occasion through which the, in some respects,
more radical difference, in reference to Christ's person, be-
came a matter of self-consciousness." Baur {Die LeJire
von der Dreieinigkeit, iii. p. 399) expresses a similar opinion:

2,7^ The Hmniliation of Christ.

" It was Luther, as is well known, who through the dogma
of the ubiquity of Christ's human nature (in connection with
his doctrine of the Supper) gave occasion to the doctrine of
Christ's person becoming a cause of division among the
Protestants. That Luther connected the doctrine of ubi-
quity with that of the Supper, was the natural result of his
way of viewing Christ's presence in the Supper; but the
former doctrine in turn presupposes a view of the person of
Christ which rested on the same mode of thinking with his
view of the Supper, which was not first suggested, but only
brought into clear consciousness, by the Sacramentarian
controversy." I believe that the account thus given in
common by such highly competent authorities, of Luther's
opinions anterior to 1527, the date of his work, Dass dicse
Worte " das ist niein Leib" nock feste stehen, is substantially
correct, and that the German reformer, previously to thai,
publication, held a view of Christ's person which pre-,
disposed him to maintain the bodily presence in the Supper,
when it was called in question. But it is open to doubt
whether Luther previously held ubiquity to be a necessary
consequence of the union of the natures, or whether he
would ever have advocated that tenet, had it not been for
the exigencies of the Sacramentarian controversy. Dorner,
indeed, maintains that Luther changed his views on that
point after the controversy with Zuingli arose, and claims
Luther's authority in support of his own theory of a gradual
Incarnation, which leaves room for a real human develop-
ment, and does not prematurely overlay the humanity with
divine attributes {^Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 53 ff.).
Thomasius, on the other hand, represents Luther as having
always held a twofold aspect of Christ's humanity, a
natural and a supernatural, a visible and an invisible
{Person iind Wcrk, vol. ii. p. 335).

Note B. — Page 107.

As the literature bearing on the Tiibingen-Giessen dispute
is all but inaccessible to students in this country, I have
had to take my information from Thomasius, Baur, and the
dissertation of Cotta on the states appended to the fourth

Appendix. — LcdiLTe III. — Note B. 377

Locus of Gerhard's Loci Theologici. The following extract
from the latter may give readers a sufficiently clear idea of
the state of this controversy: —

Missa controversia hac leviori (as to whether the exinani-
tion refers to both natures, or to one only) aliud jam nobis
commemorandum est certamen theologicum, idque maxime
infaustum, quod, ineunte seculo 17, inter ipsos ecclesiae
nostrae doctores, ac speciatim Tubingenses atque Giessenses
de idiomatum divinorum carni Christi communicatorum in
statu exiiianitionis usu, olim exarsit, ac per tempus bene
longum fuit continuatum. Statuerunt Giessenses, Christum
hominem in statu exinanitionis proprietatibus quidem divinis,
verb. grat. omnipraesentia, omniscientia, omnipotentia, etc.,
fuisse gavisum, sed earum usu ordinario se penitus abdicasse,
neque adeo acceptam majestatem divinam semper atque
incessanter usurpasse, siquidem ejusdem usus ex divina
magis voluntate, quam unione personali sit derivendus. In,
contrariam vero sententiam heic ivere theologi Tubingenses,
asserentes, Christum hominem in ipso exinanitionis statu,
vi unionis personalis, semper fuisse omnipraesentem, omnis-
cium^ nee omnipotentiae divinae usu sese abdicasse, nisi
quoad acttim reflex?nn, in munere suo sacerdotali, iisque
quae operi redemptionis perficiendo obstare poterant; in
officio autem regio, et quoad actum directum idiomata divina
usurpasse, regimenque in ecclesiam omnesque creaturas,
licet latenter (exceptis tamen miraculis atque operationibus
extraordinariis, quae palam egit) semper exercuisse. Patet
ex his, litem non fuisse de unione, quam vocant, personali,
nee de idiomatum communicatione ac possessione, sed de
eorum duntaxat usu. Quum vero controversia haec diversas
ambitu suo complectatur quaestiones speciales, de quibus
olim acriter fuit disceptatum, easdem sigillatim heic per-
censebimus. Quaestio prima erat de fundamento adaequato
et formali omnipraesentiae, quin et reliquorum attributorum
divinorum carni Christi communicatorum; an illud in sola
unione personali, an vero in libera Christi voluntate
ejusdemque sessione ad dextram patris sit collocandum .''
Prius statuebant Tubingenses, posterius Giessenses. Altera
quaestio spectabat ad justam atque adaequatam omniprae-
sentiae divinae notionem. Docebant theologi Tubing.

37^ The Humiliation of Christ.

omnipraes. consistere in adessentia vel propinquitate ad
creaturas, Christumque vi unionis personalis, adeoque non
actu naturae humanae sed personae in ipso e.xinanitionis
statu, omnibus creaturis indistanter fuisse praesentem. Ast
negabant hoc ex altera parte Gicssenses, statuentes, ideam
opcrationis ingredi definitionem omnipraesentiae, ejus-
demque characterem constitutivum, quern vocant, par-
temque essentialem esse, nee Christum exinanitum., eo
sensu, ut statuunt Tubingenses, praesentem se se ex-
hibuisse. Accedebat tertia quaestio cum priori connexa,
utrum Christo homini in statu exin. divina apud creaturas
operatio eaque universalis sit tribuenda, ita ut cuncta in
coelo et in terra, sapientia ac potentia secum communi-
cata gubernarit, adeoque acceptam majestatem divinam
semper et incessanter exercuerit. Adfirmantem senten-
tiam amplexi sunt Tubing, atque docuerunt Christum
exinanitum coelum atque terram gubernasse, eadem ra-
tione, uti gubernationem hanc in statu exalt, ad dextram
patris sedens, exerceat, hoc duntaxat observato discrimine,
quod in st. exin. gubernationem istam texerit atque occulta-
verit sub forma servili, nunc autem conditione ista servili
•ieposita, eandem gloriose ac majestatice declaret ac mani-
lestet. Huic vero adserto contradixerunt Giess. atque
:negarunt Christum temp. exin. imperium in omnes creaturas
exercuisse; hoc enim involvere plenarium div. majestatis
usum, quem Christus, finito demum exin. statu sit consecutus,
sec. oraculum Paulinum Phil. ii. 9, 10. Denique quarto dis-
putatum quoque fuit, an exinanitio fuerit vera, realis atque
omnimoda abstinentia ab usu tam dirccto, quam reflexo div.
majest. in conjunctissima duarum naturarum unione ac-
ceptae .'' an vero tantum constiterit in occiiltatione maj. div.
per formam servi assumptam } Priorem sententiam pro-
jpugnarunt Giess. poster. Tubing., qui et hoc addebant,
occultationem istam duntaxat locum habuisse in usu
idiomatum divinorum directo, nee tamen semper, prout ex
rniraculis, palam a Christo perpetrato, quae divinitatis
Christum inhabitantis fuerint radii, clare satis pateat.
Quod vero ad proprietatum divinarum usum, quem vocant,
reflexum, redemptionis operi obstiturum, attinet, Christum
eodem sponte se se penitus abdicasse. Atque de hac ipsa

Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note C. 2>79'

evacuatione usus idiomatum divinorum reflexi exponenda
esse verba gentium apostoli Phil. ii. 7 txevcoda eawov. (^Dis-
sertatio de Statibus et Officio Christi Mcdiatorio, sees,
v., vi.)

Note C. — Page 115.

Schneckenburger says: " When we review the Lutheran
position, it is not difficult to discover the inner threads by
which the speculative Christology is connected with and
produced from it. The Reformed argues: That humanity
of the Redeemer assumed into real personal unity, from the
conception in ntero virginis, existing illocally, and still
after the exaltation at the right hand of God, on the one
hand incorporated with the collegium sanctae trinitatis, on
the other hand, on that account, almighty, omniscient, omni-
present in the world — is not the humanity of a particular
man, but something exalted above all human individuals;
so to speak, the idea of perfected humanity, and the idea of
the Godhead as one with the essence of humanity, a perfect
nonentity. And whereas in the Lutheran theory, from the
moment of incarnation, or at least of exaltation, this divine-
human personality has all authority over the world, this
cannot be an absolutely new beginning for the divine Being,
the unity of the divine with that general humanity cannot
fall within time, what begins in time is simply the knowl-
edge thereof by the individual man. God cannot have
determined Himself in time to assume human nature; the
assumption on God's part must be an eternal one, so that
the assumed humanity is exempt from the limits of time as
well as of space. This God-manhood, therefore, in its
essence precedes individual human existence; and as, on
the one hand, the individual man must have part therein to
be truly man, and to correspond to his idea {iinio mysticd);
so, on the other, must each human individual have the
capacity to take part therein. All the functions ascribed
to the God-man are in this way functions of humanity
itself. Whence then have sprung the fantasies which Chris-
tendom has twined around a historical individual, but out
of its own spirit, which, seeing in this person the proper
essence of man, unconsciously gave objective existence to

380 The HumilicUion of Christ.

the ideal which lies hid in the depths of the race ? What
is the historical Christ but the occasional cause of this
fantastic self-objectification ? What is the Hpvipi'; of the
Idiom-communication, but the state of the finite spirit
become unconscious in its concrete manner of existence, of
what as absolute organizing world-reason it produced ?
And what, but a consequence of the doctrine that the can?
CJu'isti in ipso statu exinanitionis tccte ruled the world, is
it, when to the human spirit the knowledge of nature and
of her laws is ascribed, because all recollection has not died
out in its mind of what as unconscious nature-spirit it
created ? And this its humiliation is the pole of its exalta-
tion, in which as absolute spirit it returns to itself again.
In this fashion does the speculative Christology in the
hands of Strauss present itself as a phase in the develop-
ment of the Lutheran type of the doctrine, and to this
extreme the dogma was destined inevitably to come, as
soon as the old system was delivered from the trammels of
an extramundane God, and of sin." Similar remarks occur in
the work on the two states ( Voin doppeltcn Stande Christi,
38-40). [In German: Sehen wir nach der lutherischen Po-
sition hinuber, so fallt es audi hier nicht schwer, die inner
Faden zu entdecken, wodurch die speculative Christologie
mit ihr zusammenhangt und von ihr hervorgetrieben wird.
Der Reformirte argumentirt: jene Menschheit des Eriosers,
als von der Conception in utero Virginis an real in die
personliche Einheit aufgenommen, illocal existirend und
doch nach der Erh5hung zur Rechten Gottes, einerseits
dem collegium sanctae trinitatis incorporirt, andererseits
desshalb allmachtig, allwissend, allgegenwartig in der Welt
— das ist nimmermehr die Menschheit eines Menschen,
sondern etwas iiber alien Menschen-Individuen Erhabenes,
gleichsam die Idee der Menschheitsvollendung. und die
Idee des Gottheit als Eins mit dem Wesen der Menschheit
an sich, ein vollendetes non-ens. Wie lutherisch vom
Momente der incarnatio, oder wenigstens der exaltatio an,
diese gottmenschliche Personlichkeit alles Regiment aul
der Welt hat, so kann, so soil damit fur das Gottliche an
sich selbst doch nicht ein absolut Neues beginnen, das
Einssein des Gottlichen mit jener allgemeinen Menschheit

Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note C. 381

nicht eigentlich in die Zeit fallen, sondern was von ihm in
die Zeit fallt und anfangt, ist bloss das Wissen des individ-
uellen Menschen um dieselbe. Gott kann sich nicht erst
in der Zeit zur Annahme der Menschennatur entschlossen
haben, sondern diese Annahme muss von Seiten Gottes
eine ewige sein, also jene den Schranken des Raums en-
triickte Menschheit auch den Schranken der Zeit entriickt
sein. Diese Gottmenschheit geht also ihrem Wesen nach
dem einzelnen Menschsein voraus; und so gewiss das Men-
schen-Individuum daran, um wahrhaft Mensch zu sein und
seiner Idee zu entsprechen, Theil haben muss (unio mystica),
so gewiss muss das einzelne Menschen-Individuum voli
Haus aus der Fahigkeit nach daran Theil haben. Alle
jene dem Gottmenschen zugesprochenen Produkte und
Funktionen sind so Funktionen des Menschheit selbst.
Woher anders stammen also die Phantasieen, welche die
Christenheit um ein historisches Individuum geschlungen
hat, als aus dem eigenen Gemiithe, das in diesem Individ-
uum, das eigen Wesen des Menschen anschauend, Alles
bewusstloss objectivirte, was in der Tiefe der Gattung
von Idealem verborgen liegt .>* Was ist der historische
Christus anders als bloss der Veranlassungspunkt zu dieser
phantastischen Selbstobjektivirung } Was ist die upvijn<i
der Idiomen-communication, wenn nicht der Zustand des
endlichen Geistes, der sich in seiner concreter Existenz-
weise nicht mehr unmittelbar bewusst, was er als absolute
organisirende Weltvernunft producirt hat .-' Was ist es,
wenn nicht die Consequenz der Lehre dass die caro Christi
in ipso statu exinanitionis tecte das Regiment der Welt
ausiibe. . . . wenn dem Menschen-geiste darum die Kennt-
niss der Natur und ihrer Gesetze zugeschrieben ist, weil
ihm nicht durchaus alle Erinnerung dessen erloschen sei,
was er als bewusstloser Naturgeist geschaffen } Und jene
seine Erniedrigung ist der Pol seinei* Erhohung, in welcher
er als absoluter Geist zu sich selbst zuri!ickkehrt. In sol-
cher Weise stellt sich die speculative Christologie wie sie
namentlich bei Strauss auftritt, als eine Phase auf der Seite
der christologischen Entwickelungen innerhalb des luther-
ischen Lehrt5'^pus heraus, und es musste zu diesem Ex-
trem fortgehen, so wie die dem alten Systeme anhaftende

3*82 The HMuiliation of Christ.

Klammern des extramundanen Gottes, und der Sunde
wegfielen ( VergleicJiende Dai'stellung, Zweiter Theil, pp.
2i8, 219).]

Note D. — Page 129.

Schweitzer says: " The Christology of the Reformed
appears to rest on the following principles: — i. Christ
fully belongs to our race, a man consisting of body and
soul, named the nattira hiiniana, the hiunanitas of Christ.
2. Christ's humanity is by the highest fulness of gifts of grace
as highly exalted as a human soul possibly can be; in par-
ticular, the proclivity called original sin is by this equipment
so broken that soul and body can attain to a sinless course
of life: praestantia Jiumanae Christi naturae. 3. To this
comparatively highest worth of Christ is joined a specifically
unique one: the Logos life of God, the source of the
prophetic illumination, dwells in Christ as the innermost
animating principle of His personality, divina Christi natura
or more strictly, the participation in God thereby, that this
man is twitodrazoi z(2 X6yop\ He is the Son of God, and
the Only-begotten. 4. The Being and Life emanating from
God, or the Logos, is as such transcendent, infinite; but in
the way in which He appears as the principle of the Person-
ality of Christ, this divine Being and Life passed into human
limitations without absorbing these: idoniata divina non
conimunicantnr hnmanae naturae, occultatio majestatis divinae.
5. Precisely this theanthropically formed existence and
activity is the redeeming work, and it appears as the com-
pleted religious life and religious moral activity: opera
redemtionis a persona secundum utramque naturam profiscis-
cuntur. 6. This economic Christology rests on the real
Trinity in the economy of the divine Being: 7ion tres pcr-
sonae, non pater, non spiritus sanctus, non essentia tribui per-
sonis communis, sed filius, sive bXoyoi, incarnatus est qtia
viti'>6ra6i<=,. The Christology resting on these foundations
is not indeed carried fully out, because the old formulae
exercised a disturbing influence. The disturbance, however,
is not so great as appears. It is said, e.g., starting from
the formula, duae naturae in und persona: in Christ is a

Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note D. 383

humanly limited knowledge, secundum hunt, ejus naturani,
an absolute secundum divinam; the latter statement has
reference to the divine nature only in the abstract. The
concrete TJieanthropos has emptied Himself of the absolute
knowledge of God; for had He as a real possession the
absolute and the limited beside each other, the personality
would be cleft asunder; and had He the absolute knowl-
edge really, the human finite knowledge would be absorbed.
The Intention, therefore, was to maintain the perfection of
the religious life of Christ only in a humanly limited intelli-
gence, and to derive His freedom from error from the divine
elements. The reproach is unfounded that the Reformed
shrank from the idea of the divine being realized in the
temporal; all that they shrank from, and rightly, was the
ignoring of the forms under which alone this process is
conceivable, and can be accomplished; they aimed at a
historic reality; they meant to teach that God really be-
came man, became humanly determined; but they did not
quite manage to put the matter rightly, to give the idea
adequate expression." [In German: Es scheint die Chris-
tologie der Reformirten beruhe auf folgenden Grundlagen:
I. Christus ist vollig unserer Gattung angehorig, ein Mensch
aus Leib und Seele bestehend, was man die Jiatura humana,
die Jiumanitas Ch. nennt. 2. Christi Menschheit ist durch
hochste Fiille von Gnadengaben so hoch gehoben, als eine
menschliche Seele iiberhaupt gehoben werden kann, na-
mentlich ist jener Erbsiindenhang in Folge dieser Austattung
so gebrochen, dass Seele und Leib eine siindlose Lebens-
fiihrung erreichen: praestantia humanae Ch. naturae. 3. Zu
dieser graduell hochsten Wiirde Christi kommt endlich eine
specifisch einzige; das Logosleben Gottes, die Propheten
erleuchtend, wohnt Christo ein als innerstes die Personlich-
keit beseelendes Princip, divina Ch. natura, oder genauer
das Theilhaben an Gott dadurch, dass dieser Mensch
lvvTt66raro'i r&j Xoyco ist; er ist der Sohn Gottes, und zvvar
der eingeborene. 4. Das emanirte gottliche Sein und Le-
ben order der Logos ist als soldier transcendent, unend-
lich; in der Art aber, wie er als Kern der Personlichkeit
Christi zur Erscheinung kommt, ist dieses gottliche Sein
und Leben in menschliche Bestimmtheit eingegangen, ohne

384 The Humiliation of Christ.

diese zu absorbiren, idomaia divina non communicaniuf
Jiumanae natia-ae^ ocailtatio majestatis divinae. 5. Gerade
diese theanthropisch gestaltete Existenz und Wirksamkeit
ist die erlosende, und erscheint als das vollendete religiose
Leben und religios sittliche Wirken — opera redeintionis a
persona secundum utramque natnrani profiscisctinhir. 6. Diese
okonomische Christologie ruht auf der realen Trinitat in
der Oekonomie des gottlichen Wesens; non tres personae,
non pater, non spir. sane, non essentia tHbus personis com-
munis, sed fili2is, sive 6X6yo<i, incarnatus est qua vn66va6i%.
Die auf diesen Grundlagen ruhende Christologie ist freilich
nicht rein durchgefuhrt worden, indem das Unbequeme der
alten Formeln storend eingewirkt hat. Diese Storungen
sind aber nicht so bedeutend als sie scheinen. Sagt man z.
B., von der Formel ausgehend — d2iae naturae in una persona,
in Christus sei ein menschlich beschrilnktes Wissen secundum
hum. ejus naturam, ein absolutes secundum divinain: so gilt
letzeres von der div. natura in abstracto. Der concrete
Theanthropos aber hat sich dessen entaussert; denn hatte
¥x als wirklichen Besitz das absolute und beschrankte
Meben einander, so wiirde allerdings die Personlichkeit
jjespalten; hatte er das absolute wirklich, so ware das
'Oienschlich endliche Wissen absorbirt. Man will also nur
m menschlich bestimmter Intelligenz die Vollendung des
X{.eligi6sen behaupten und hat diese Irrthumslosigkeit vom
Gottlichen abgeleitet. Ungegriindet ist der Vorwurf, man
scheue sich reformirter Seits das Gottliche im Zeitlichen
verwirklicht zu glauben; vielmehr scheut man sich nur, und
mit Recht, die Formen zu ignoriren, unter denen allein
dieser Process denkbar ist und vollzogen werden kann; man
will gerade eine historische Realitat, man will lehren, dass
Gott wirklich Mensch werde, sich menschlich bestimme,
aber man dringt noch nicht durch {^Die Glaubenslehre
der evangeliscli-reforniirten Kirc/ie, Zweiter Band, pp.
336, 337)-]

Note E.— Page 133.

The Reformed theologians were not altogether of one
mind as to the relation of the humanity of Christ to the

Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note E. 385

category of personality. The prevailing view, however, was
that the human nature of our Lord, while dwitoCraroz in
itself, was EvvTt66xaTo<i through the Logos. They did not
hesitate to call Christ a man. Such phrases as these occur
in the Admonitio: iste homo Dens est; Imic homini datain
esse ipsani Dcitatcm. Nevertheless, according to the same
document, the human nature is so borne and preserved by
the Logos, even in glory, that " «^ qiiidein persona sit per
se; sed duntaxat natura, quae ne existeret qiddein, 7iisi sic
gestarcttir a persona Xoyov " (persona is here used in the
'literal ancient sense of V7c6dra6ii, what is placed under as
a support, not in the modern sense of the Ego). To the
same effect Zanchius, who starts the difficulty. If the Logos
assumed a human body with a rational soul, does that not
amount to assuming a person } and then disposes of the
" magna dnbitatio " by laying down the position, that the
humanity was a.vvitodxazo'i in se, because it never subsisted
separately from the Logos (De incarnatione, lib. ii., theses
ii. and iii.). He has no hesitation, however, in calling Christ
a man; e.g.: aliud enim quum nominamus animam et carnem
Christi, tunc enim de natura loquimur; et aliud quum eam
nominamus hominem. Personam enim tunc indicamus qua-
tenus in humana subsistat natura. Ideo damns Christum
hominem esse ubique; negamus autem carnem vel animam
ubique (lib. ii. thes. iii. p. 64). Again, p. 68: Haeresis
est Nestoriana tam negare Deum Patrem esse hujus
hominis quam negare Mariam matrem esse hujus Dei. The
same view is given by Henry Alting: Non potest certe
Natura Humana esse V7t66ra6ii, Persona; verum necesse est
ut in se dvvTt66raToi, kvvTiudraroi autem sit in Xoxao qui
accepit formam servi. Eo tamen nihil decessit Naturae
Humanae pcrfectioni; quia rnansit substantia, mansit parti-
bus suis et proprietatibus Integra, mansit etiam individualis.
Imo tanto plus accesit, quanto majus est subsistere in
Persona Creatoris quam subsistentia creaturae (Scriptormn
Theologicorum, vol. i. p. 149). The last thought reminds
one of the sentiment of the Lutheran Hollaz, who enum-
erates dvviio6za6La among the prerogatives of Christ's
humanity, and speaks of the want of human personality as
Divina filii Dei hypostasi tanquam longe eminentiori com-

386 The Hiuniliation of Christ.

pensata. Mastricht, on the other hand, denies personality
in every sense to the humanity. He speaks of the human
nature as id quidem omne habens, quod ad constitutionem
nat. hum. est necessarium, eoque nobis quoad naturam, per
omnia similis, solo excepto peccato, sed tamen personali-
tate, per quam incommunicabilis et completa fit natura,
penitus destituta, pcnitiis inquam, hoc est, non propria
tantum et sibipeculiariquaeduplicem inferatpersonalitatem,
sedparticipata etiam per quam Iwnodvavo'i nonnullisdicitur,
destituta; quod ea ratione, humana natitra subsisteret per-
sonalitate divina, adeoque humana natura persona foret
divina [lltcologia Theorct. Practica, lib. v. c. iv. p. 538).
Schneckenburger suggests, as a reason for the exclusion
of natural personality from the human nature in the Re-
formed theory, that such personality was held, to come
within the scope of the qualifying clause peccato excepto, on
the ground that no self-consciousness is holy, except when
absolutely surrendered to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
For this notion, however, he gives no citations. This
author has some very subtle remarks on the impersonalitas
in its bearing on the question of a double consciousness,
which, as they may interest some minds, I here translate.
He says ( Frr^/. Darstcll.ix. p. 199): "The impersonality,
strictly considered, is but the highest expression for what
others call the absolute determination of the human nature
,by the Logos. They (the defenders of impersonality) say:
Without the assumption of impersonality there would
result a double personality, by which the unity of self-
consciousness would be broken up, and the consequence
would be no real Incarnation, therefore, after all, only one
personality, that of the Logos. But do we now get, on the
supposition of the impersonality, a certain double person-
ality In the Logos } For as person of the Trinity, as totits
extra Jesuin, He is conscious of Himself after another
fashion than He is as occnltatus natura humana. This last
divine-human self-consciousness is not the full comprehen-
sive Logos-consciousness, though rooted therein; for in
that case the world-embracing Logos-consciousness must
have extinguished itself pro tempore, which (from the
Reformed point of view) is impossible. If, therefore, such

Appejidix. — Lcchtre III. — Note E. 387

a temporary darkening of the divine self-consciousness be
inadmissible, then the divine-human self-consciousness of
the Logos occidtatiis must be only a shadowy time-image
(abbildliche zeitliche Schattirung) of the eternal, absolute
Trinitarian Logos-consciousness, resting thereon as its
foundation: the latter must embrace the former as the
cotitiiiens o{\.\\& coiitentiivt. Therefore the impersonality is
not to be taken in the sense, that a human self-conscious-
ness is not ascribed to Jesus. Quite opposed to this con-
struction is the scientia Jiabitiialis, which, as a habitual
knowledge in the objective sense, presupposes a focus ol
habitual self-consciousness, whereby alone the vents etjustus
homo can subsist. The scicniia personalis^ i.e. the omnisci-
ence of the second person of the Trinity, the God-man had
only potentially (an sich), not as a knowledge really per-
vading and thereby annihilating the time-series of Hii
inner life movement (seiner innern Lebensmomente), but
the Logos self-consciousness was here only as the God-
consciousness of the human self-consciousness, and so the
being of God in Him was the light image of the eternal
divine self-consciousness focusing itself in His human soul
(der in seine menschliche Seele fallende abbildliche Strahl
des ewigen gottlichen Selbstbewusstseins). The whole
normal human soul of Jesus never had a self-consciousness,
nay, not even a moment of unconscious vital feeling previous
to the awakening of self-consciousness, in which the Logos
had not an absolutely determining influence on the life-
course, so that this person never stood outside the relation
to the Logos as the determining power; that relation was
for Him the living conscious P'irst in His self-consciousness.
Such is the impersonalitas"

LECTURE IV.

Note A.— Page 145.

To the Thomasian type of kenosis may be referred Konig,
Delitzsch, and Kahnis. Konig anticipated Thomasius.
The statement on page 139 is correct only in the sense that
Thomasius was the first to present the kenotic theory in
developed form. The idea had been propounded, previouij
to the appearance of his Beitrdge in 1845, by Konig in Dw
MenscJnverdiing Gottes ah cine in Christies gcscheliene, tind
in der christlichen KircJie nocJi gescJicJiende, dargestellt,
Mainz 1844. Konig, as may be gathered from the title of
his book, teaches a double Incarnation, one of the Logos in
Christ, and one of the Holy Spirit in the Church collectively.
The former of the two Incarnations he regards from the
kenotic point of view, and his mode of presenting the doc-
trine is substantially the same as that of Thomasius. The
Logos empties Himself of omniscience and omnipotence in
assuming human nature (in its integrity), and so becomes a
divine-human personality. " The Scripture calls the tran-
sition of the Logos out of the infinitude of God into the
finitude of human existence a K£Kca(jz?, self-emptying, or liter-
ally, self-void-making. . . . The self-emptying must, with-
out doubt, be conceived in accordance with the words of
Christ and of His apostle, as a true emptying of self; with
the entering into humanity, and in its gradual development,
and from its first beginnings, the Aoros freely subjected
Himself, in the fulness of His infinite love, to the law of a
human gradual development; He gave up the glory, bright-
ness, and majesty which He had with the Father before
the foundation of the world. . . . He renounced the majesty

Appendix. — Lecture IV.— Note A. 389

of His omniscience as such, and retained it only as a com-
pletely pure, untroubled conscience, or if one prefers the
word, God-consciousness; the omnipotence as such He de-
livered over to the Father, and in passing into humanity He
retained the decision for His Father and His will, and the
impulse to do this will." [ " Den Uebergang des Logos aus
der Unendlichkeit des Gottes in die Endlichkeit des Mensch-
endaseins bezeichnet die heilige Schrift als eine Hevoodii;
als Selbstentausserung oder wortlich Selbstleerung. . . .
Die Selbstentausserung muss aber ohne Zweifel als eine
wahre Entausserung oder Sich-Leermachung ganz dem
Worte Christi und seines Apostels gemass gefasst werden;
mit dem Eintreten in die Menschheit und in deren all-
mahlige Entvvickelung, und zwar von ihren ersten Anfangen
an, unterwarf sich der Xoyoi in der Fiille seiner unendlichen
Liebe dem Gesetze menschlicher allmahlige Entvvickelung
freiwillig, er gab die Herrlichkeit, Klarheit, und Majestat
auf, die er hatte bei dem Vater vor Grundlegung der
Welt. . . . auf die Majestat seiner Allwissenheit als sol-
cher verzichtete er, und behielt sie als vollendet reines
ungetriibtes Gewissen, oder wenn man lieber will, Gottes-
bewusstsein; die Allmacht als solcher iiberliess er dem
Vater, und behielt, in die Menschheit iibergehend, die
Entschiedenheit fiir seinen Vater und dessen Willen,* und
den Trieb, diesen Willen zu thun " (pp. 296-298).] Again:
*' The kenosis is the great idea by which, apprehended in
accordance with Scripture, the reality of a true Christology
can come into existence. The kenosis contains the idea of
self-limitation which the Logos in the exercise of His own
will, in agreement with the will of His Father, has willed
and carried into effect. . . . This limitation was possible
only by God Himself in the Logos subjecting Himself to
the process of mediation, out of love, yea, out of infinite
love (to sinful humanity). He subjected Himself freely to
the law of gradual development." [" Die k£vco6is ist die
grosse Idee durch deren offenbarung- und schriftgemasse
Auffassung die Wirklichkeit einer wahren Christologie allein
wird zu Stande kommen. Die kenosis enthalt die Idee der
Selbstverendlichung, Selbstbeschrankung die vom Xoyoi
frei aus seinem eigenen dem vaterlichen entsprechenden

390 The Humiliation of Christ.

Willen und Wesen gewollt und gesetzt wird. . . , DIese
Verendlichung war gar nicht anders moglich als dass Gott
selbst im Logos dem Prozess der Vermittlungsich unterwarf;
aus Liebe, ja aus unendliche Liebe (to sinful humarwty)
unterzog er frei sich dem Gezetze allmahliger Entvvicklung "
(p. 338).] To the objection that the kenosis violates the
unchangeableness of God, Konig replies, that God the
Logos, by submitting to the kenosis involved in Incarna-
tion, showed the most unconditional love, and thereby
asserted and maintained His inmost essence (p. 340). On
the question to which nature the personality belongs, he
remarks that it is inept, because "the God-man Jesus is
the Logos in human form; when He thought and said 'I,'
He embraced His whole divine-human Being, which became
divine-human (or theanthropic) at His Incarnation. . , .
There never was a man Jesus apart from the Logos; but
as the Logos, before He became in Jesus God-man, pos-
sessed personality, one can freely say that the personality
of the God-man was the eternal element of the Logos,
which, however, in the Incarnation became subject to the
process and law of human development, gradual in time
and space, and of course as personality of the Logos must
cease from His supernatural form of existence in order to
become the personality of the God-man, in a natural and
historical form of existence " [ " der Gottmensch Jesus ist
der Logos in Menschengestalt; wenn er ' Ich ' dachte und
sagte, so fasste er seine ganzes gottmenschliches Wesen
zusammen, welches als Gottmenschliches erst mit und in
seiner Menschwerdung geworden oder entstanden. . . .
Einen Menschen Jesus ohne den Logos hat es niemals
gegeben; da aber allerdings der Logos ehe er in Jesus
Gottmensch wurde Personlichkeit besass, so kann man
freilich sagen dass die Personlichkeit des Gottmenschen die
ewige des Logos war, die aber eben mit der Menschwer-
dung dem. Prozesse und Gesetze der menschlichen, als
zeitlichen und raumlichen allmahligen Entwickelung sich
unterwarf und natiirlicherweise als Personlichkeit des Lo-
gos, in seiner ubernatiirlichen Existenzform aufhoren musste,
um die Personlichkeit des Gottmenschen in natiirlicher und
geschichtlicher P^xistenzform zu werden " (pp. 340, 341)].

Appendix. — Lcdttre IV. — Note A. 391

Konify goes on to argue that if the personality of the Logos
had not in free infinite love subjected Himself to a process
of gradual human development, the kenosis would not have
been real, the human and divine would simply have been
parallel to each other. He regards the kenosis as an ex-
change of the divine for the human form of personality, and
does not allow a double life of the Logos. I have thought
it right to give this account of Konig's views, all the more
that Thomasius, so f§ir as I have observed, takes no notice
of it, though he gives a list of other supporters of the
kenotic theory {^Person iind Werk, ii. p. 196).

Delitzsch gives his opinion on the kenotic theory in
his System dej' bihliscJien Psychologies pp. 326-333 (Zweite
Auflage, 1861). He says that it is one of the greatest,
holiest, and most worthy to be studied problems of modern
theology, in accordance with the pervading impression of
true humanity and undivided unity which the person of
Christ makes as set forth in Scripture, to remove the self-
contradictory dualism, above which the Church view of
the God-man has not been able to raise itself, in such
a way that, without relapse into long refuted errors, the
substance of the Catholic dogma may remain intact. The
right solution, he indicates, will be that which in the first
place holds fast the gottlich-inensehliche Doppelwesen of
Christ, without assuming a transformation of the divine
nature into the human, in contradiction to the eternal,
unchangeable self-equality {Selbstgleichheit) of God; and, in
the second place, which allows the thesis, that the Logos
in Christ is the person-forming and the humanity the as-
sumed, to remain in possession of its scriptural rights; and
thirdly, which succeeds in showing how the Logos, with-
out ceasing to be what He is eternally, could make Him-
self the subject of so truly human a being as meets us
everywhere in the Christ of the Gospels. The main ques-
tion is, according to Delitzsch, this: " How could the
Logos so empty Himself, that He should give up His eternal
glory, and yet more, His eternal mode of existence, and
the properties flowing therefrom in relation to the world,
the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, with-
out surrendering the identity of His eternal Being ? "

392 The Humiliation of Christ.

[" Wie konnte der Logos sich so entaussern dass er seine
evvige Doxa und noch mehr; dass er seine ewige Seinsweise
und die aus ihr der Welt gegeniiber fliessenden Eigen-
schaften der Allmacht, der Allwissenheit, der Allgegenwart
aufgab, ohne doch die Identitat seines ewigen Seins aufzu-
geben " (p. 327).] The fact, he says, is indubitable. The
incarnate Logos is not in possession of the eternal doxa,
for He desires to regain it (John xvii. 5). He is not om-
niscient, for He knows not, as He Himself says, the day
and hour of the end (Mark xiii. 32). He is not almighty,
for power over all, as the risen One says, is given unto Him
(Matt, xxviii. 18). He is not omnipresent, since He is
ascended in order to fill all (Eph. iv. 10). To refer these
expressions to the humanity alone, is to sever the unity
of the person, and turn the reality of the human nature
into a sham. The only question is. How is the fact to be
accounted for .-' How could the Logos give up His eternal
glory, and these attributes of His divine manner of being,
without parting with His divine nature, whose effulgence
that glory is, and whose energy those attributes are .-' The
solution, according to our author, is to be found in this,
that the essence of absolute personality consists in unlim-
ited self-determination, and that the root of the divine
Being is will, which is the pr ins of all actual self-conscious-
ness. The Son of God could thus without renouncing His
being " withdraw to this lowest basis, this root-power, this
all-determining ground and origin of His Being, and so
with the emptying of His unfolded Being make Himself
the subject of a human personality, and become objective to
Himself in a new up-springing self-consciousness, which,
although it has His now double existence for contents, yet
is no double consciousness, but a single one springing out
of a single divine-human life ground " [" auf diese unterste
Basis, diese wurtzelhafte Potenz, diesen alles beschlies-
senden Grund und Ursprung seines Wesens zuriickziehen
und so mit Entausserung seiner Wesensentfaltung sich zum
Subjecte einer menschlichen Personlichkeit machen, und
sich selbst in einem neu aufgehenden Selbstbewusstsein
gegenstandlich werden, welches, obgleich es sein nunmch-
riges Doppelwesen zum Inhalt hat, doch kein doppeltes,

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note A. 303

sondern ein aus einheitlichem gottmenschlichen Lebens-
grunde aufgehendes einiges ist " (p. 328)]. Such self-reduc-
tion involves no interference with the immanent trinitarian
process, because " the Son remained even in that with-
drawal or systole of His unfolded Being in which the
kenosis lay, the other divine will, in which the original will
of the Father mirrors itself, and which has the fulness of
the Father's Being for its contents " [" der Sohn blieb audi
in jener Einzehung und, so zu sagen, Systole seiner Wesens-
entfaltung worin die Entausserung besteht, der andere
gottliche Wille, in welchem der urbildliche Wille des Va-
ters sich spiegelt, und welcher die Wesensfiille des Vaters
zu seinem bewegenden Inhalt hat " (p. 329)]. Neither
does it involve any suspension of the world-preserving and
governing activity of the Trinity, because in " the self-
emptying of the Son realizes itself the eternal will of love
of the triune God, and therewith His own eternal will '*
[" in der Selbstentausserung des Sohnes verwirklicht sich
ja der ewige Liebeswille Gottes des dreieinigen, und somit
sein eigener ewiger Will " {ibid^\ Redemption is the;
centre of the upholding and governing of the world, there-,
fore " so far from any blank entering into the world-
sustaining, world-governing activity of the triune God, that
activity rather concentrated itself centripetally in the self-
emptying of the Son, and had therein its centre of gravity,
without wholly resolving itself thereinto " [" Kam in die
welterhaltende und weltregierende Thatigkeit des dreiein-
igen Gottes so wenig eine Liicke, dass sie sich viel mehr in
dieser Selbstentausserung des Sohnes, ohne darin aufzu-
gehen, gleichsam centripetalkraftig zusammenfasste und
daran ihren Schwerpunkt hatte " {ibid.)'] ; so that the <pspoov
vditdvra (Heb. i. i) retained its truth, "even as the hu-
man spirit in the bonds of sleep, not less than in the full
stir of waking hours, without interruption of its self-iden-
tical life, continues through the soul to be the life-power
which dominates the body. The self-emptying of the Son,
and His theanthropic suffering unto death connected there-
with is, rightly viewed, the most strongly willed, most
powerful, most intensive self-assertion; in this self-empty-
ing culminates the free self-might of the everlasting Son,

394 ^^^ Hu7niliatio7i of Christ.

and concentrates itself in the eternal love which wills and
carries through the completion of the world; its effects ex-
tend not only over the whole of humanity, but over heaven
and earth " [" ahnlich wie der menschliche Geist in der Ge-
bundenheit des Schlafes nicht minder, als in der vollen Reg-
samkeit des Wachens, ohne Abbruch seines selbstgleichen
Lebens mittelst der Seele die den Leib durchwaltende
Lebensmacht zu sein fortfahrt. Die Selbstentausserung
des Sohnes und sein damit verbundenes gottmenschliches
Leiden bis zum Tode ist ja, recht besehen, die willens-
starkste thatkraftigste allerintensivste Selbstbethatigung;
in dieser Selbstentausserung gipfelt die freie Selbstmacht
des ewigen Sohnes und concentrirt sich die der Welt Vol-
lendung wollende und durchsetzende ewige Liebe: ihre
Wirkungen erstrecken sich nicht allein auf die ganze Mensch-
heit, sondern auf Himmel und Erde " (p. 330)]. The view
here given of the continued participation by the self-
emptied Logos in the government of the world, taught
also by Hofmann (see next note), is quite compatible with
the Thomasian theory of depotentiation. It is physical
power replaced by moral; strength perfected in weakness.
From the above it will be seen that Delitzsch does not hold
that the Logos superseded the human soul; and he takes
care, with express reference to Gess, to repudiate this
view.

Kahnis declares for the kenotic theory of Christ's per-
son in Die Lehre heiligen Geiste, pp. 57, 58. He starts from
the difficult question, How in Christ the relation of the
divine consciousness to the human is to be conceived .-' On
the Church doctrine of two natures in one person, the per-
sonality belonging to the divine nature, and the human
nature being by consequence impersonal, he remarks, that
as the essence of humanity lies in consciousness, Christ
without a human Ego is not complete man; further, that
human thought, will, and feeling are not conceivable with-
out a human self-consciousness; and finally, that the cer-
tain fact of the gradual development of Jesus is reduced to
seeming, if the Ego, which grows in wisdom, is at the same
time wisdom itself; if the Ego, which grows in grace, is at
the same time the source of grace. The human nature

Appendix. — Lectin' e IV. — Note A. 395

imperatively demands a human person. But as the divine
Ego nevertheless stands fast, the only outlet seems two
persons. This solution, however, has ever been rejected,
and justly, for it reduces the whole life of Jesus to a lie,
because in such a relation (a sort of possession) the Son of
God is not man, nor is the man Son of God, and either
person, in appropriating the properties of the other, is
guilty of taking what does not belong to it. (Uebergriffe
machte, die gottliche des Scheines, die menschliche des
Raubes.) There must be but one person. This one per-
son could unite the two natures only by being finite and
infinite at the same time. The human self-consciousness,
which is not an immoveable point, but in all life-relations
is diversely shaped, sensuous, understanding, rational, re-
ligious, etc., consciousness (sinnliches, verstandiges, ver-
nunftiges, religioses u. s. w. Bewusstsein), presents an
analogy for the assumption in Christ of a self-consciousness
which belongs at once to both natures. When Christ is
tempted, weeps, trembles in the garden, feels Himself God-
forsaken, His Ego enters wholly into human finitude;
when He nam.es Himself the resurrection and the life, is
transfigured, when He desires the glory which He had with
the Father, the divine consciousness dominates over all
finite relations. The forthcoming of the one does not ex-
clude the other, but it demands a retirement of it, yet with-
out sin in the human (doch ohne Siinde beim menschlichen).'
John's word, " The Word became flesh," does not signify
an assumption of, but a transition into, human nature (ein
Annehmen oder Anziehen der menschlichen Natur, son-
dern ein Uebergehen in dieselbe); demands therefore that
the Logos consciousness should become human (dass das
unendliche Logosbewusstsein ein endlich menschliches
geworden sei). The Logos consciousness therefore must
be conceived of, during the infancy of Jesus, as latent in
the human, and with the progressive human development
out of the religious relation (aus dem religiosen Verhalt-
nisse), growing into a consciousness of a peculiar child-
hood (als Bewusstsein einer besonderen Kindschaft), till
in maturity Jesus assumed the divine life which the human
Ego has as grace, as the nature of His Ego (das gottliche

396 The Humiliation of Christ.

Leben welches das menschliche Ich als Gnade hat, als
Natur seines Ich aufnahm). Therefore, while the Church
doctrine rightly derives the self-consciousness of Christ,
not from the human nature, but from the Logos nature, it
must take the additional step of assuming a becoming finite
on the part of the Logos consciousness, in order to gain for
the human nature a human consciousness (" eine Verend-
lichungdes Logosbewusstsein anzunehmen, umfiir die men-
schliche Natur ein menschlich Bewusstsein zu gewinnen ").
Kahnis proceeds to make some remarks on the assertion
of the negative critics, that in the Christ of the synoptical
Gospels the Divine is the Holy Ghost, while in John it is
the Logos. He denies the accuracy of the statement, and
maintains that the Logos in fact, though not in word, is
recognised in the Synoptics, and that the influence of the
Holy Ghost is recognised in John. The need for that in-
fluence is explained by the effect of the Incarnation on the
Logos. In becoming flesh the Logos became subject to
the laws of the flesh, therefore needed to be protected by
the Spirit from taint in His human nature, so that He
might be born free from sin. As a citizen of the divine
kingdom. He needed the Spirit to consecrate Him to be
Messias. As perfect man. He required to have, not sim-
ply a finite Ego, but a life for the infinite in which all
religion consists. This infinite life, for which the finite Ego
exists, dwelt in Him from the conception as Holy Spirit.
Out of the Holy Spirit, who pervaded the human nature
more and more, the lost glory of the Logos came into con-
sciousness, somewhat as Plato conceives of all spirit-life as
a recollection. If we are to believe in an intimate mutual
pervasion of the divine and human natures in Christ, the
intermediate link must be found in the Holy Spirit, who
condescends to finitude and weakness in order to form it
into the divine image.

Note B. — Page 153.

To the Gessian type may be referred Gaupp, Hahn,
Schmieder, Reuss, Godet, and (but with hesitation) Liebner
and Hofmann, also Goodwin, an American theologian.

Appendix, — Lecture IV. — Note B. 397

Gaupp [Die Union, Breslau 1847, PP- 112-117) finds the
solution of the problem of the Incarnation, the union of the
divine and human natures in one person, in the idea of the
self-exinanition of the Logos, and the trichotomy of human
nature into body, soul, and spirit; the Logos, by a voluntary
kenosis, constituting Himself a human spirit, and assuming
a soul and body, and thus subjecting Himself to a purely
human development. " Happily the idea of the kenosis
comes to our aid, and under the assumption of the biblical
trichotomy of spirit, soul, and body, in the one human in-
dividual, makes a conception of the Incarnation of the
Logos possible, according to which the Logos, by that act
of infinite love, could constitute Himself into a human
spirit, assume soul and body in His conception through the
Holy Ghost in the virgin's womb, and so subject Him-
self to a purely human development." ['* Da kommt uns
gliicklicherweise die Idee der Selbstentausserungdes Sohnes
Gottes zu Hiilfe, und macht, unter Voraussetzung der
biblischen Trichotomie von Geist, Seele, und Leib, in dem
einen Menschen-Individuum, eine Auffassung der Incarna-
tion des Logos moglich; nach welcher dieser, mittelst
jener unendlich liebreichen Entausserungsthat, sich selbst
zum Menschengeiste konstituiren, Seele lind Leib bei seiner
geheimnissvollen Empfangniss durch den heiligen Geist
im Liebe der Jungfrau von aussen annehmen und hiermit
einer rein menschlichen Entwickelung sich unterziehen
konnte " (p. 113).] The kenosis Gaupp, like Gess, bases
on a Subordinatian view of the Trinity. The Son has His
eternal life from the Father, who alone is the original
ground {Urgrnnd) of all being, and therefore can declare,
not merely with reference to His humanity, but with refer-
ence to His divine nature, "The Father is greater than L"
The Son, therefore, unlike the Father, is "capable of self-
exinanition; He can, so to speak, estrange Himself from
His own divine na,ture, and divest Himself of His bright-
ness and majesty, and all divine properties, depositing
them, so to speak, with the Father, that He may be wholly
man, and be subject to the law of growth as a child,
knowing no more of Himself than other children, and attain-
ing only gradually to His human self-consciousness, and

-39S The Humiliation of Christ.

meriting by a life of obedience the restitution of the glory
He had voluntarily abnegated. To Christ, in the state of
humiliation, Gaupp ascribes a moral likeness to God, due
to the influence of the Holy Spirit communicating to Him
gradually divine properties; the natural properties of God-
head, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence he repre-
sents Christ as attaining only in the state of exaltation,
and even then only in the relativity which the idea of human
nature demands (in derjenigen Relativitat die die Idee
der Menschennatur erfordert, d. h. in den Ring der Mensch-
heit gefasst, p. 1 16). To the glorified body of Christ, Gaupp
ascribes circumscribedness; yet he thinks that from the
humanity of the glorified Son a sphere of power rays forth
pervading all space, after the analogy of the sensible at-
mosphere which some anthropologists, as he thinks rightly,
ascribe even to men living on earth, in order thereby to
solve certain riddles of human nature.

Hahn (Z)/V Theologie des Neiien Testaments ^ Leipzig 1854,
, Erster Band, pp. 195-210) takes a similar view of the
constitution of Christ's person, the Logos taking therein,
according to him, the place of the human spirit. The
change of condition which the Son of God underwent in
becoming man had a positive and a negative side; He
assumed something, and He gave away something. What
He assumed was the ^dpl, that is, the material, human
corporeality, and the condition which goes along therewith
(" die matericlle menschliche LciblicJikeit und der mit dieser
verbundene Zustand "). What He gave up was the condi-
tion of His premundane absoluteness (seiner vorweltlichen
Absolutheit). The son of God entered into the flesh
emptied of all His divine prerogatives, in a state of limita-
tion corresponding to the human cJa'pl, retaining, indeed, the
essence of Godhead, but reduced to a potence, in which
the divine majesty lay only as a germ. [" Das absolute
TTVEvi-ia ist zum beschrankten itvEvfia eines sinnlichen Men-
schen geworden, es hat sich bis zu dem Grade der Keim-
artigkeit, beschrankt, dass es gleich geworden ist dem noch
unentwickelten nvsvua: jedes Menschen im Momente seiner
Entstehung, so dass alles gottliche Bewusstsein und alle
gottliche Krafte in ihm voUig gebundeii waren, und erst

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 399

der Entwickelung bedurften, wenn er sich als Sohn Gottes
manifestiren sollte, und als solches beschranktes nvEvi-ia ist
er in die 6dp^ eingegangen " (p. 199).] This truth is most
phiinly expressed in the words 6 yuXo'; ddp^ hyevEzo, which
mean, not merely that the Logos appeared in the flesh
{IcpavepwOr/ iv 6apKL, I Tim. iii. i6), but that in His con-
sciousness and spiritual power He entered into the limits
of a sensuous existence (" dass er ganz und gar zu einem
fleischlichen d. h. sinnlichen Wesen geworden sei ") (p. 200).
In thus limiting Himself to the dimensions of a human
spirit, and uniting Himself as a human spirit to human
flesh, the Son of God became a full and true man, foi
human nature consists of two parts, 6dpz, and iti'Evna. Yet
three things distinguished Christ from all other men: i.
His supernatural birth; 2. His spirit, while human, was
yet not of temporal origin, like that of other men, except
indeed as to form of being, but in its essence was eternal
aiwviov; and, moreover, it was a nvEvfta in which dwelt in
germ the fulness of Godhead. The former attribute of
Christ's spirit the author finds attested in such passages as
Heb. ix. 14 (^Sid nvEvi-tavoi alooriov), I Tim. iii. 16 (^£<payEpo66?f
Ivdapxi), I John iv. 2 (^EV dapui E-yrjXvBora), Heb. ii. I4
{KEKoivoJvipcEv ai/iaroi uai 6apn6i)\ the expressions quoted
showing that, according to the view of the N. T., the In-
carnation of the Son of God did not consist in His assiutiing
an entire human nature consisting of body and soul, but in
this, that He assumed a human body [" dass der schon
vorhandene (praexistirende) Geiste Christi (natiirlich in
einem Ziistande der Beschrankung) in einen menschlichen
Leib eingegangen sei" (p. 206)]. The third distinctive
feature of Christ's humanity is its sinlessness, which is
explained by the fact that His spirit was not derived from
sinful humanity, was therefore pure and strong, and could
keep the 6dp^ in its own place, though from its nature the
latter supplied- material for temptation, especially as it was
reinforced by the power emanating from the close connection
in which He stood to His heavenly Father. [" Ein Princip
(die (jof^?) von dem zwar Vesuchungen ausgingen, die aber
Jesus, vermoge des Lebens seines TtvEvua, und vermoge der
^unmittelbaren Verbindung, in welcher er mit seinem

400 The Hiimiliatioji of Christ.

himmlischen Vater stand, und der von diesem ausg-ehenden
Kraftigung stark genug war, in jedem Momente zu
iibervvinden " (p. 210).]

SCHMIEDER {Das Jiohcpricsterliche Gebet misers Herrn
Jesti CJiristi, Hamburg 1848) expresses his view in these
terms (pp. 36-42): " The Son of God became man; that is,
He renounced His self-conscious divine personal being' and
took the form of a spiritual potence, which self-forgotten,
as unconscious formative power worked in the womb of
Mary, and formed a body which was fitted so to serve the
development of this spiritual potence that it could use it as
its own property and become conscious, could develop
itself therein, and by means thereof put forth its energy
The spiritual power works in the beginnings of the forma-
tion of the body simply on nature, as unconscious force,
later in the body as spiritual nature, as soul, which becomes
conscious of its sensations and conceptions, and self-active,
but does not yet with full self-consciousness react against
it; lastly, in the soul or spirit as self-conscious, self-deter-
mining, self-activity. The spirit is the first and the last; it
forms the body, it moves the soul, but it can be named
spirit properly only when it has come to itself, when it
knows its power, and fully wields it." [" Der Sohn Gottes
ward Mensch: das heisst, er begab sich seines selbstbe-
wussten gdttlichen Personseyns und nahm die Gestalt eines
geistigen Vermogens an, das selbstvergessen als bewusstlose
bildende Kraft im Eingeweide der Maria wirkt und aus den
belebten Saften einer menschlichen Mutter einen Leib
bildet, der geeignet ist, der Entwickelung dieses bestimmten
-geistigen Vermogens so zu dienen, dass dasselbe sich
dessen als seines zugehorigen Eigenthums bedienen und
bewusst werden, sich selbst darin und mittelst desselben
selbstthatig entwickeln kann. Das geistige Vermogen
wirkt in den Anfangen der Leibbildung bloss als Natur, als
bewusstloses Vermogen, spater in dem Leibe als geistige
Natur, als Seele, die sich ihrer Empfindungen und Vorstel-
lungen bewusst wird und selbstthatig, aber noch nicht
vollig selbstbewusst dagegen zuriickwirkt, endlich in der
Seele als Geist, als selbstbewusst sich selbst bestimmende
Selbstthatigkeit. Der Geist ist das Erste und das Letste;

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 401

er bildet den Leib, er bewegt die Seele; aber Geist verdient
er erst genannt zu werden, wenn er zu sich selbst gekom-
men ist, wenn er sein Vermogen erkennt und frei dariiber
schaltet " (p. 38).] The Logos becomes an unconscious
power, producing a body in the Virgin, working first as
nature, then in the formed body as soul, then in the soul
as spirit self-conscious and self-determining. Jesus on
earth was, according to this author, the divine genius of
the human race, knowing Himself to be the same person as
before the kenosis, but taking up into His self-conscious-
ness the body with its sensitive soul (empfindende Seele),
and using this animated body as the servant of His divine
spirit, till, in the state of exaltation, body and soul become
spiritualized {TtvEvixariuov), when Christ is no longer simply
a divine genius, but the God of humanity in constant
fellowship with the Father.

Reuss {Histoire de la The'ologie Chretienne ati Steele Apos-
toliqiie, 1864), speaking of the Pauline view of Christ's
person, indicates briefly his opinion as to the meaning of
the passage in Phil, ii., in these terms: " Tl est dit expres-
sement que I'element divin est I'essentiel; I'element humain,
quelque chose d'adopte, d'ajoute, d'exterieur. Cela im-
plique I'idee d'un abaissement, d'une espece de privation,
d'un depouillement, et nous conduit directement a nous
representer I'union des deux natures comme I'alliance d'un
esprit divin avec un corps humain, explication qui se re-
commande par sa simplicite meme; mais qui n'a jamais ete
du gout des theologiens. II est vrai qu'elle n'est pas ainsi
formulee dans les textes, mais ceux-ci ne contiennent pas
un mot qui lui soit contraire " (vol. ii. p. 71). That is to
say, the most natural construction of the apostle's state-
ment is to find in it Gess's theory of the kenosis, the Logos,
as a human soul, assuming a human body. On the other
hand, Reuss finds no trace of a status exinanitionis in John's
writings. The Incarnation for John is not a humiliation,
but a glorification — even in His death the Son of man is
glorified; and this idea is held to be quite incompatible
with the scholastic view, according to which Christ's death
was the lowest degree of abasement. This is very super-
ficial theology (see tome ii. p. 455).

402 The Hitmiliatioii of Christ.

GODET {Comincntai7-e sur rEvangile de Saint Jean, Paris
1864) expresses the opinion that the Church doctrine of
the two natures does not perfectly set forth the sense of the
Scriptures, and that both Reformed and Lutheran theories
fail to solve the problem of reconciling the real humanity
with the pre-existence, and says that the Scriptures do not
teach the presence of the divine nature with its divine at-
tributes in Jesus on earth. The expression in John i. 14
conveys the idea of a divine subject reduced to a human
state, but not of two states, divine and human, co-existing.
Paul teaches the same idea in Phil. ii. 6. The words of the
apostle {kxevcoda, etc.) can only mean, " qu'il a depose son
etat divin pour prendre I'etat humain; il ne les a done pas
combines en s'incarnant, mais il a echange celui-la pour
celui-ci." The glory referred to in John xvii. is *' I'etat
divin avec tous ses attributs, sa forme de Dieii, selon I'ex-
pression de Saint Paul, dont il s'etait depouille en se faisant
homme." This self-exinanition implies, to begin with, the
loss of self-consciousness. "II faut ensuite que le sujet
divin consente a perdre pour un temps la conscience de lui-
meme, comme tel. La conscience d'une relation si par-
ticuliere avec Dieu et le souvenir d'une vie anterieure a
cette existence terrestre seraient incompatibles avec I'etat
d'une veritable enfant et avec un developpement reellement
humain." But at His baptism Jesus at length attained to
the consciousness of His being the Logos. His ministry
required this, because "pour temoigner de lui meme, il doit
se connaitre." This self-consciousness, however, did not
restore the divine state, the form of God. He had the use
of the treasures of wisdom and power which are in God.
But He possessed nothing. He could therefore say: " Pere
rends-moi ma gloire." After the ascension He regained
His divine state. " Des ce moment il est mis en posses-
sion, et cela comme Fils de I'homme, de tous les attributs
divins, de I'etat de Fils de Dieu, tel qu'il le possedait avant
son Incarnation: Toiite la plenitude de la divinite Jiabite
CORPORELLEMENT cn lui" (Col. ii. 9). Godet refers to
Gess, and expresses his general agreement with the view
presented by the latter: " dans son bel ouvrage {Lehre von
der Person Chris ti, 1856) dont (he adds) j'ai eu I'honneur

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — IVote B. 403

de rendre compte a I'epoque de son apparition," Revue Chre''
tienne, 1857-58. (See Coiinnentaire, tome premier, 247-265.)
LlEBNER {CJiristologie oder die cJiristologiscJie Einheit
des doginatiscJicn Systems dargestelli, Erste Abtheilung [all
that has appeared], Gottin^en 1849) ^^^Y be classed under
the Gessian type, because, so far as appears, he does not
recognise any human soul in Christ distinct from the Logos,
and because he teaches a Subordinatian view of the Trinity
as the foundation of an absolute kenosis of the Son, whereby
He empties Himself of divine contents, and becomes, as it
were, a mere form or empty vessel to be re-filled by a
process of human development. Liebner's speculations,
Trinitarian and Christological, while extremely interesting
and suggestive, are rather abstruse; but the following
sketch, it is hoped, may afford a clear and sufficient outline
of his system. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on the
idea of personality, which is not a solitary, but a social
thing. Not merely self-assertion over against another, as
conceived by Strauss and Fichte and many modern philos-
ophers, but — and this is the positive moment — it is reach-
ing beyond self, including another, and allowing itself to
be included, in a word, love (not mere " Selbstheit gegen
Anderes, Fiirsichsein gegen Anderes, Anderes von sich
Ausschliessen," but "das liber sich Uebergreifende, das
Andere Einschliessende, und sich Einschliessenlassende,
und das ist die Liebe," p. 115). The Trinitarian process
turns upon the nature of love as self-communication. God
wills to realize Himself as absolute love, or, what is the
same thing, to be real absolute personality; hence the ten-
dency to transpose Himself, as it were to lose Himself in
His own Other — God the Son. But this second, in order
to realize Himself in turn as love, tends to lose Himself
again in the first as His absolute object. Thus, on the one
side, God the Father goes forth from Himself, and posits
the Son, transposes Himself into the latter, makes Him-
self, after the nature of love, dependent with respect to the
Son, empties Himself into the Son. On the other, side the
Son, moved by the same impulse, makes Himself in turn
dependent on the Father, empties Himself into the Father.
But as this process of love makes Father and Son mutually

404 The Humiliation of Christ.

dependent on each other, and so tends to repeat itself ad
infinitiivi, a necessity arises for a third hypostasis, who pre-
serves the distinction in unity, and vice versa, and brings
the process of the absolute life and love to rest, and com-
pletes it. Without the third person the mutual love of
Father and Son would resolve itself into an everlasting
seesaw, an eternal unrest — each in turn losing Himself in
the other. In order that the two first persons in their
mutual self-communication should be at the same time
eternally independent, there is needed a third object-subject
of their love, whom they love in common, and by whom
they are both beloved, as the principle of absolute equi-
poise, of true union in distinction (p. 127). In this trinita-
rian process the initiative lies with the Father, and in this
respect there is a certain element of subordination in the
relation of the Son to the Father. This element may be
called an eternal kenosis, which is at the same time posited
and cancelled, but is still there as a cancelled moment (die
Subordination des Sohnes als Sohnes nach seinem cJiai^acter
hypostaticiLS ist ewig trinitarisch gesetzt und aufgehoben,
iiberwunden: doch ist sie eben an sich da, namlich als
aufgehobene, als iiberwundenes Moment, p. 150). This
eternal element of kenosis is the eternal possibility of In-
carnation (p. 150). In the Incarnation that eternal kenosis
becomes temporal. The self-emptying of the Son, and His
being re-filled from the fulness of the Father, which are
simultaneous in the trinitarian life, in the incarnate state
are unfolded into a succession of moments, first the self-
emptying, then the being re-filled. This temporal kenosis,
in abstract language, may be defined as the Son of God
entering into Becoming {Werdeti), becoming a mere form
to be gradually filled with divine contents. This entering
into Werden, according to Liebner, cannot take place in
any other way than by Incarnation; God cannot enter
into the creation except as man. The entrance of the
Logos into Wcrdcn is eo ipso Menschwerden. Hence the
problem of Christology is to exhibit the process by which
the Logos, reduced to a form by becoming flesh, becomes
as a man progressively filled with divine contents. The
interest in this process turns mainly on the moral and the

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 40 5

intellectual growth of Christ. As to the former, Liebner,
as his theory requires, recognises the distinction in reference
to Christ between formal and real freedom — the former
consisting in liberty of choice, and involving the possibility
of a wrong choice; the latter, in the free yet necessary
doing of the good, excluding the possibility of sin. By the
kenosis, the will of Christ became a form to be filled by a
process of ethical development, involving temptation, with
ethical contents, perfect holiness. But Liebner differs frorn
Gess in treating the possibility of sinning involved in for-
mal freedom as a mere abstraction in the case of Christ.
He could be tempted, but He could not sin. The personal
peculiarity of Christ consists in the marvellous identity of
the posse non peccare, the posse peccare, and the non posse
peccare (p. 295). In answer to the objection, that on this
view Christ is after all not truly human, Liebner remarks
that He is divine-human — that is His peculiarity; and asks,
" Is it not the highest possible form of humanity — das gott-
me)iscJilicJie Urbild dcr McnscJiJicit — this complete ethical
infallibility } " (p. 298). To justify the ascription of the
non posse peccare to Christ, he lays stress on the considera-
tion, that in His case an ethical existence preceded His
entrance into time, whereas in the case of man (Adam)
only an ethical idea preceded his existence (Seinem Werden
geht ein (ethisches) Sein voraus; unserm Werden nur die
Idee, die ideelle Bestimmung, p. 303). With regard to the
intellectual development of Christ, Liebner thinks that his
theory enables him to resolve the difficulties very simply.
The doctrine of the Logos entered into Werden, as to self-
consciousness, takes the following shape: In infancy the
Logos had no actual self-consciousness, only the divine-
human Potenz. He had His consciousness in the Father,
He was lost in the Father, and came only in the course
of development through the mediation of the Spirit
to self-consciousness, which from the very first was
divine-Jiitman. It took the form of (presentment in the
boy of twelve. The baptism was a critical point in
the self-consciousness of Jesus, at which He became
fully acquainted with Himself (p. 31 1). Liebner further
discusses the development of Christ on what he calls

4o6 The Hiimiliation of Christ.

the nature-side. He says, Christ as the Head is the sum
of human nature, of the whole organic system of the nat-
ural gifts of humanity, an individual and yet a universal man.
Not, however, as if in Christ all human gifts attained to
actual development. His vocation as Redeemer demanded
the actualization only of the highest moments. Never-
theless in these, in Plis holiness, all possible human gifts
were sanctified. In Christ lay the principle of the true
artist, statesman, etc. ; though He was neither <s;6-/^/, because
He did not need to be. This doctrine of a pleromatic hu-
manity is connected in Liebner's case, as in the case of
many other German theologians {e.g. Ebrard), with the
theory that the Incarnation was destined to take place
irrespective of sin. Sin affected the accidental conditions,
but not the fact of Incarnation. The Christological theory
of Liebner is summed up by himself in these terms: " Christ
was the Logos entering into Wcrden, which eo ipso is to
become man. Hereby a theanthropic personality is formed
with the to it adequate universal nature, as condition of its
realization in the world, which personality, at first pure
Potence, in successive developments under the form of
human knowledge and will (reason and freedom), at each
stage of human life, as it came in natural course, infallibly,
and yet in a truly human ethical process, identified itself
with the divine element. This is the notion which alone
helps to solve the problem of the union of the two moments,
which irresistibly press themselves upon our view as we
survey the Christological contents of Scripture; on the one
hand, that Christ receives all in truly human ethical activity
from the Father, and yet, at the same time, on the other
hand, is conscious of all as originally and essentially His
own." [" Christus war der Logos ins Werden eingegangen,
was eo ipso Menschwerden ist. Hiemit ist eine gott-
menschliche Persdnlichkeit gesetzt mit der ihr adaquaten
universalen Natur als Bedingung ihrer Realisirung in der
Welt; welche Personlichkeit, zunachst reine Potenz, in suc-
cessiver Entwickelung unter der Form des menschlichen
Wissens und Wollens (Vernunft und Freiheit) auf jedei
menschlichen Lebensstufe, wie sie mit der natiirlichen Ent-
wickelung gegeben war, unfehlbar und doch in einem

Appe7idix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 407

wahrhaft menschlich ethischen Process sich mit dem gott-
lichen Inhalt wieder zusammenschloss. Dieses ist der allein
losende Begrifif fiir die Verbindung der beiden Momente,
die aus dem Totaleindruck des christologischen Schriftin-
halts sich unwiderstehlich aufdrangen: das Christus Alles
in wahrer menschlicher ethischer Arbeit von seinem himm-
lischen Vater empfangt und doch zugleich Alles urspriing-
lich und wesentlich sich zugehorig weiss " (p. 345).] Liebner
repels the charge of Apollinarism which, he imagines, many
may be ready to bring against his theory, by pointing out
that in the ApoUinarian theory the sinlessness of Christ
is guaranteed by the exclusion of freedom: Christ's holiness
is a physical thing, there is no ethical development. He
also remarks, that the idea of the Head of humanity, by
which the doctrine of God-manhood is completed, is strange
to the ApoUinarian system. At the same time, he attaches
high value to Apollinaris in the history of Christology, and
says that the great questions he raised were not answered
in his age by the Church, and have not even yet been truly
answered (p. 372). Having ranged Liebner under the
Gessian type, it is necessary in justice to him to add, that
he condemns the Zinzendorfian metamorphic kenosis as
exaggerated, unscriptural, monstrous, and beset with the
greatest difficulties. The Cliristological image in Scripture,
he thinks, shows, along with true humanity, a surplus of
the superhuman, superadamitic, which cannot be recon-
ciled with the fiction of the transformation of the Logos
into a man (pp. 338-340).

HOFMANN discusses the Incarnation in the second vol-
ume of his work, Der Schriftbezveis, ein tJieologiscJier Ver-
siich (pp. 1-43, Zweite Auflage). His Christology is of the
kenotic type, but it is not easy to fix his precise where-
abouts, as on some points he does not explain himself clearly.
This is especially the case in reference to the question
whether Christ had a rational soul distinct from the depo-
tentiated Logos. In reply to Dorner, who classed him
among those who supported that view of the kenosis, ac-
cording to which the Logos became a human soul, he says:
" What good can it do to bring together texts in which,
in an accidental way, mention is made of the body, soul,

4o8 The Huiniliaiion of Christ.

and spirit of Jesus ? After it has once been said that He
became man, it is self-evident that to Him all that belongs
whereby a man is a man. And I think I may leave the
matter thus, after Dorner has made the discovery, that I
evidently, not altogether without design, avoid expressing
myself concerning the soul of Christ, on which account he
forthwith reckons me among those who patronize the form
of the kenosis, according to which the Logos became a hu-
man soul. All that he says on that score does not affect
ipe in the least, and only in the one point is he right, when
he says: the thesis that God in reducing His actuality to a
Potence thereby becomes man, or inversely that man is God
potentially, God standing in need of development, lies out-
side of my range of vision. But the question which lately
Gcss has propounded in order to answer it in the negative,
whether there was in Jesus, beside the Logos, a soul derived
from Mary, has not for me any sense at all, as every one
will understand who from this book knows what the soul
and what the Incarnation means for me. The case stands
for Christ's soul-life not otherwise than with that of every
one born of woman." [" Was kann es niitzen, solche
Schriftstellen zusammen-zutragen, in welchen zufalliger
Weise von Jesu Leib oder Seele oder Geist die Rede ist }
Nachdem einmal gesagt ist, dass er Mensch geworden,
versteht sich von selbst, dass ihm alles das geeignet hat,
was dazu gehort damit ein Mensch Mensch sei. Und hie-
bei, meine ich, kann ich es auch jetzt lassen, nachdem Dor-
ner die Entdeckung gemacht hat, dass ich iiber Christ!
Seele mich auszusprechen offenbar nicht ganz absichtlos
vermeide, weshalb er mich sofort denen beizahlt, welche
diejenige Wendung der Kenosis vertreten, wornach durch
sie der Logos menschliche Seele geworden. Alles das,
was er dort ausfiihrt, geht mich auch nicht das Mindeste
an, und nur in dem Einem hat er das Rechte getroffen,
dass er sagt, der Satz, dass der seine Actualitat zur Potenz
herabsetzende Gott eben damit an ihm selbst Mensch, oder
umgekehrt, der Mensch potenzieller, entwikelungsbediirf-
tiger Gott sei, liege ausserhalb meines Gesichtskreises.
Die Frage aber welche sich neuerlich Gess gestellt hat,
um sie zu verneinen, ob in Jesu neben dem Logos eine aus

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 409

Maria stammende Seele gewesen, hat fur mich gar keinen
Sinn, wie Jeder begreifen wird, der aus diesem Buche kennt.
was mir die Seele und was mir Christi Menschwerdung ist.
Es verhalt sich mit Christi seelischem Leben nicht anders,
als mit dem eines jeden vom Weibe Geborenen " (p, 43)]
Instead of distinctly answering the question whether the
Logos and the human soul of Christ were the same or dis-
tinct, Hofmann here tells us it has no meaning for him, and
for the rest refers us to his representation of the Incarna-
tion. Turning to that, we find him interpreting Phil. ii. 6 f
as teaching an exchange of the form of God for the form of
a servant, and extracting from John i. 14 the idea that the
Word exchanged His previous form of being for another
which is its opposite (Widerspiel), giving up His Godhead
and assuming our nature. " We are flesh. He became it."
[" Wir sind 6d(ii_, er ist es geworden " (p. 26).] In accor-
dance with this view, we are told that all the formulae
must be given up which are derived from a conception of
the incarnation as a union of the divine and human natures
(p. 22). Yet we are not to suppose that the incarnate Lo-
gos has ceased to be God. " He remains wJio He was,
though He has ceased to be zvhat He was: " [" Allerdings
aber ist er der geblieben, der er war (oder besser gesagt,
der er ewiger Weise ist). Dies liegt schon darin, dass er,
derselbe, welcher Gott bei Gott gewesen, Fleisch gewor-
den, hiezu in die Welt gekommen ist. Nur das, was er war
(namlich geschichtlicher Weise war), hat er aufgehort zu
sein, um etwas Anderes zu werden " (p. 26)]. The two
clauses put within brackets in the above extract (by me,
not by the author) contain hints of the view taken by Hof-
mann of the bearing of the Incarnation on the doctrine of
the Trinity. The Logos remains in an eternal manner
{ewiger Weise) God after He has become man. That does
not mean, however, that the incarnate Logos has a double
historical existence, one in the flesh, the other as world-
governing Logos. The one form of existence has been ex-
changed for the other (p. 23). It is true, indeed, that even
on earth, even in His mother's womb, as a child growing in
wisdom and stature, sleeping and waking, working and suf-
fering, the Son of God took part in the government of the

4IO The Humiliation of Christ.

world, because in all these He was fulfilling the eternal pur-
pose of God for the salvation of men, in which the divine
government of the world has its unity. But the incarnate
Logos in His state of exinanition takes part in the govern-
ment of the world, not as a Lord, but as a servant (pp. 26, 27).
In this part of his scheme of thought, Hofmann substantially
agrees with Gess, who makes Christ cease from the govern-
ment of the world during His life on earth; only he does
not agree to call the fact a cessation from such government,
because he holds that even in serving, Christ was, in a new
way, ruling (p. 27, where Gess's view is referred to). Hof-
mann declines Ebrard's way of stating the case, that the
eternal form of existence was exchanged for the temporal.
He maintains that the right way to put the matter is to
say that the Logos, retaining throughout the eternal form
of existence, exchanges one form of historical existence
for another. For he holds that the Logos was a historical
person before He became man. Previous to the Incarna-
tion, He occupied the historical position of a supramundane,
omnipotent, world-governing Power and Will. In the In-
carnation He entered into an intramundane state of being,
— into the human finitude of existence, knowledge, and
power. [" Aber so ist es nicht, dass er die Ewigkeitsform
mit der Zeitlichkeitsform vertauscht hat, sondern aus
seinem geschichtlichen Stande der Ueberweltlichkeit,
des weltbeherrschenden Konnens und WoUens und Gegen-
wartigseins, ist er, der hier und dort gleich Ewige, in die
Innerweltlichkeit, in die menschliche Umschranktheit des
Daseins und Wissens, und Konnens eingegangen, die eine
geschichtliche Bethatigung seines ewigen Wesens mit der
andern vertauschend " (p. 24).] The import of this view,
in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity, is, that the
Incarnation affected not the essential, but only the eco-
nomical Trinity. Hofmann's doctrine with reference to the
Trinity is as follows: — The names Father, Son, and Spirit
express an interdivine relation, — that is to say, there is
such a thing as an essential Trinity, but the essential
Trinity is only the presupposition of God's historical self-
manifestation. As it is of this self-manifestation alone that
the Scriptures directly speak, the interdivine relations are

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 411

always represented as involving inequality. Christ is God's,
and God is the Head of Christ, and the Spirit is spoken of
in the neuter gender (vol. i. p. 200). The interdivine rela-
tion is one of equality: all three persons are equal in power
and glory; but the relation becomes one of inequality as
soon as it enters on a process of self-fulfilment (i. 268).
This process began with the creation, and was completed
by the Incarnation. In the creation the interdivine rela-
tion entered into its lowest degree of inequality, the three
persons of the Godhead becoming respectively the Father,
the supramundane Creator; the Son, the original world-aim,
" urbildliches Weltziel " (i. 270); and the Holy Spirit, the
intramundane active Life-ground, " der inweltliche wirk-
same Lebensgrund " (i. 190). In the Incarnation the inter-
divine relation between Father and Son entered into its
highest degree of inequality, becoming as great, in fact, as
it could, without involving a self-negation of God [Da ward
die Ungleichheit des innergottlichen Verhaltnisses in sei-
ner geschichtlichen Gestaltung so gross, als sie ohne Selbst-
verneinung Gottes werden konnte, ii. 24]. But even in this
extreme inequality the relation remained essentially the
same. Though Christ, not partially only, but completely,
unreservedly, renounced all supramundane self-manifesta-
tion, yet He did not cease to be God, ewiger Weise. He
entered into human finitude, but He did not become a
finite creature [Nicht theilweise, sondern vollig und ohne
Vorbehalt hat sich Christus in seiner Menschwerdung aller
iiberweltlichen Selbsterweisung begeben, ohne dass er darum
aufhorte, was ja nicht aufhoren kann, well es auch nicht
angefangen hat, ewiger Weise Gott zu sein. Er hat sich in
die menschliche Umschranktheit dahingegeben, ohne da-
durch ein endliches Geschopf zu werden. Die Art und
Weise seiner Selbsterzeigung ist eine andere geworden,
aber was er erzeigt, ist nachher wie vorher seine nicht zum
blossen Sein der Potenz reducirte, sondern ewige, also ihrer
selbst und damit der Welt machtige Gottheit, ii. 24]. Hof-
mann characterizes Gess' Subordinatian view of the Trinity
as an error, and ascribes Gess' mistake to a neglect of the
distinction on which he (Hofmann) insists between the his-
torical inequality and the eternal equality of the interdi-

412 The Humiliation of Christ.

vine relation (i. p. 271). On another point this instructive
writer differs from Gess, viz. in reference to the moral de-
v^elopment of Christ. He says, with reference specially to
Ebrard's view, that it is false to say of Jesus in His earthly
life only potnit non peccare, reserving the non potest peccare
for the glorified state. The true distinction between the
two states is, that in the status exinanitionis Christ could be
tempted, while in the glorified state He cannot be tempted
(ii. 65). Hofmann holds that the sinlessness of Christ's
human nature is a matter of course (ii. 31), and that it was
impossible for the man Jesus to sin, because the everlasting
God, become man, could not deny Himself. His human
historical will could not enter into contradiction with His
eternal divine will, which dwelt within the former, and the
eternal God became man just because that was the sure
way to victory over sin. [Der menschgewordene ewige
Gott konnte nicht sich selbst verneinen, der Mensch Jesus
also konnte nicht sundigen, sein menschlich geschichtliches
Wollen nicht in Widerspruch treten mit seinem demselben
innewohnenden ewig gottlichen Wollen, und der ewige
Gott ist eben deswegen Mensch geworden, weil dies der
gewisse Sieg iiber die Siinde war. Es ist also falsch von
Jesu in seinem Fleischesleben nur zu sagen, potiiit ?ion pec-
care, und erst von dem Verklarten, non potest peccare. Der
Unterschied allein ist zu setzen, dass er dort hat versucht
werden konnen, hier aber unversuchbar ist, ii. p. 65.] It
remains to add that Hofmann is substantially at one with
Liebner in regard to the sense in which the exchange of
forms implied in the kenosis is to be understood. Liebner
makes the nopcptj dovXov signify the human existence-form
as one of dependence and subjection to God, the existence-
form of the creaturely ethico-religious personality. The
^lopcpv 0SOV, on the other hand, signifies the existence-
form of absolute independence, freedom, absolute person-
ality (p. 327). Hofmann says the apostle's meaning is,
that Christ deprived Himself of the appearance in divine
self-glorious might, in which He existed over against the
world, in order to assume the appearance of intramundane
servitude and dependence; not, indeed, of servitude to men,
but of creaturely dependence on God; and in this exchange

Appe7idix. — Lecture IV. — Note C. 413

of the one yiopcpir) for the other did the kenosis consist
(i. p. 140).

Goodwin {Chris l and Humanity. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1875) gives a lengthened sketch of the history
of the doctrine of Christ's person, with a view to show the
unsatisfactoriness of the Church Christology in all its forms,
and then proceeds to state and vindicate his own view,
which is essentially the same as those of the German writers
above referred to, especially Gess and Liebner. This au-
thor is familiar with the German kenotic literature, but he
arrived at his opinions independently, and previous to his
acquaintance with European advocates of them. The In-
carnation, according to him, was the human element (the
Logos), eternally in God, becoming man by taking flesh,
and occupying the place of a soul. He founds his theory
on the basis of the essential unity of the divine and human.

Note C. — Page 153.

Das Dogma vom heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte,
Frankfurt-a-M. 1845; ^^<^ Christliche Dogmatik, Konigs-
berg 185 1. The prefaces to these works contain interesting
particulars, affording a glimpse into the circumstances and
feelings out of which they arose. The preface to the
earlier work especially reveals the state of the writer's
mind, as that of one full of high hopes with regard to the
union of the two branches of the German Church, and
burning with desire to serve that sacred cause. The author
dedicates his work to four friends who were in one way or
another associated with the formation of its plan or the
execution. Two of the friends he reminds of the many
never-to-be-forgotten Sunday evening conversations in
which they discussed together the questions at issue be-
tween the two confessions, he representing the Reformed,
they the Lutheran, but all being one in heart, and cherish-
ing the hope of being one day one in outward church
fellowship. It was amidst these conversations that the
purpose was formed to make an attempt at a solution of
the weightiest doctrinal differences. Another of the friends
he reminds of the evening of ist September 1840, when,

414 The Hwmliation of Christ.

refreshed by a delightful walk among the hills, and inspired
by the harvest sunshine and the fragrance of the shrubbery,
they sat by the murmuring spring, and, amid deepening
shadows of the advancing day, talked of the unity of their
faith and love and hope, — and were glad because they
were at one in their views on the Koly Supper of the Lord.
The fourth friend he thanks for valuable aid in procuring
out of the chaos of the Erlangen library the literary
material necessary for the execution of a ten years' task.
In His preface to the ChristlicJie Dogniatik, the author
mentions a fact which illustrates to what an extent the
works of the older dogmaticians have been studied in
Germany in recent times, viz. that his citations are taken
from forty-six volumes of Reformed authors, belonging to
the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Such
particulars may savour somewhat of egotism, but they
bring before us in an interesting way the laudable habit,
characteristic of German students, of combining exact and
extensive historical research with original and independent
thought. German theologians are not the slaves of their
old writers, but they know them and value them.

Note D. — Page 159.

For the satisfacion of such as may wish fuller information
respecting Ebrard's method of dealing with the speculative
problems of Christology, I give here, in condensed form, his
views on the two questions: How can divine and human
properties be united in the same subject .'' and how can the
eternal and the incarnate Logos have an identical con-
sciousness .'' The original passages on which this statement
is based will be found in Abcndmahl, i. 186-202; Dogmatik,
ii. 144-148. The two questions (above stated) cannot be
answered so long as time and eternity are regarded as two
mutually exclusive forms, and it is not understood that it
is an everlasting determination of God to reveal His essence
in the form of a temporal development, as werdender Gott,
as entwickelender Gottmensch. Everything turns on re-
garding the wall of partition between eternity and time,
not as absolute, but only as requiring mediation. Eternity

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — A^te D. 41 5

as the form of extra temporality (Auserzeitlichkeit), having
time standing over against it as the Other, non-eternal, is
not the highest, but the time-form filled with eternal
essence is the highest goal. Eternity as form of the extra-
temporal is the form of the Trinity as the world-governing;
but God wills to glorify His Essence in the world, and in
order to this He must give up the Ewigkeitsform and
assume the time-form. God, indeed, as causa sui, can-
not enter into time; but as objective to Himself, as
eternal personal Logos, He can, and He has. Scripture
being witness (Phil. ii. 6 ff), and in so doing He has
exchanged the Ewigkeitsform for the time-form. In the
incarnate Logos we can have no difficulty in finding all
divine properties, if only one do not conceive these in a
stiff, external way, but separate between the Ewigkeitsform
appropriate to the world-governing God, and the eternal
Essence appearing in the incarnate God. Omnipotence
is not to be thought of as meaning that God can do all
that is possible, " alles Mogliche kann," as if there were a
sphere oi possibilia outside and independent of God; but as
signifying that the sphere of the actual (geschehenes) has
its principle and prius in the divine will. In the world-
governing God this omnipotence appears as a willing and
positing of the whole world in all times and places; in the
incarnate God it appears in time-form as a will having
dominion over particular powers of nature coming in its
way (Wunderkraft), which is just the individual expression
of the dominion of the spirit over nature to which man is
destined. In like manner omnipresence does not mean that
God is in all places " an alien Orten ware," as if there were
a space outside and independent of God; but that space is
in God, and everything in time and space has its prius in the
being of God. In the world-governing God omnipresence
is all-space embracing being; in the incarnate God it signi-
fies that Jesus finds in this or that space no limit of His
corporeal being, is not ruled by space, but rules it, and is
where He will, — a dominion to which man is destined.
Omniscience does not mean that God knows all real and
possible things, but that His will and vision are the
principle and prius of all that is for us knowable of the

41 6 The Humiliation of Christ.

whole world. In the world Governor it is a real overlooking
(Ueberschauen) of all spaces and times; in the Incarnate it
amounts to this, that the knowable is no limit for the
knowledge of Jesus, but He sees through (durchschaut)
single objects, coming in His way in time, unerringly in the
light of the Truth which He brings with Him as His
essence, — a dominion of spirit over the objects of knowledge
to which man is destined. With these explanations the
first of the two problems, the combination of divine and
human properties in Christ, appears no longer insoluble.
As for the second, three considerations go far towards
its solution: (i) The existence and manner of existence
(Daseyn und Soseyn) of the world — human freedom, and
its results included — are grounded in an eternal free neces-
sary act of God. The love of God, which calls forth and
mediates the contrast I and thou in God Himself, also calls
forth the existence of a time-sphere (Welt), whose special
manner of being is determined by the purpose that God's
essence should be glorified therein. This sphere is first
nature, — with man it becomes ethical, spiritual. Nature is
for man's sake. Man is nature's crown, yea, its centre or
principle, last in creation, but spiritually the priiis. But
humanity itself is an organism; and as nature seeks man, so
humanity seeks to gather up its multitude into a last highest
unfolding, in a king, a perfect man, in whom the unity of
man with God, the glorification of the Divine Essence in
time, will be completed. (2) Now the Logos knows Him-
self as the world-creating, organizing Word of the Father,
as the Wisdom of the Father appearing in the world. The
world is objective to the Logos, and He sees Himself
therein. But not in it, so far as it forms an abstract time-
line (Zietlinie), or so far as it is corrupted by abuse of
human freedom, but only so far as it is an organism ordered
by God's essence and sanctified by God's grace. The eternal
intuition by which the Logos sees the world must not be
regarded, after the analogy of human vision, as an abstract
overlooking (Uberschauen) of the time-line, but as a
through-looking (Durchschauen) of the organism of human-
ity. Time and the world, humanity in its historical course,
are for the eye of the Logos not a line, but a body with a

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note D. 417

centre. That centre is the God-man. Jesus of Nazareth
is the middle point of history, blossom of the old, principle
of the new time; the King, to whose kingdom we are all
called, the last, highest crown of all development. So He
appears to the view of the Logos. Not as the particular
individual who lived under Augustus, but as the centre of
the world and of humanity: He beholds the world as the
appearance of His own eternal being; He beholds it in the
microkosm of the person Jesus Christ as in Himself; He
knows Himself from eternity, as Jesus the Christ who is end
and centre of the rational universe (des logischen Wesens),
(3) Jesus Christ underwent development as a man, but His
development was normal 2.\\A all-sided. Normal: That in-
born feeling of every man, that he is created to be one in life
with God, which is repressed in the sinful, was present in
Jesus the sinless, first as feeling, in all its force. He felt
God to be His Father. When reflection came. His knowl-
edge of objects and relations, of His own being and of God,
was unerring. He knew Himself as holy, as the only Holy
One; out of the prophets He knew the desire of humanity
for salvation, and His own vocation as Redeemer; He knew,
from the relations in which He was placed, the necessity
that He, the sinless, should experience in vicarious suffering
the culmination of sin. His baptism was probably the
point at which He made the transaction from mere presenti-
ment to clear knowledge of His calling. But if He knew
Himself as the Redeemer, He could not fail to know Him-
self also as the centre of the world's history, as the Son of
man, the dEvvspoi 'Addm, in whom was to be found the nXr/poona
of human powers, the exaltation of humanity to God, the
absolute communication of God to humanity. That is. He
knew Himself as the God-man, as the Logos of the Father
(the eternal hypostatic thought of the Father concerning
the world) come to manifestation, as the incarnate Logos
who before Abraham — is. In short, the eternal Logos
knows Himself as the Logos appearing in time, the incar-
nate Logos knows Himself as the incarnate eternal Logos.
The consciousness of both is perfectly coincident. It is
the consciousness of the eternal Essence destined to
appearance in time, the consciousness of the time-form

4i8 The Hu77iiliation of Christ.

filled with the eternal Essence; in a word, the neither
extra-temporal eternal, nor the relative temporal conscious-
ness, but the consciousness of the perfect interpenetration
of time and eternity, the festive consciousness of the
marriage of time and eternity.

Note E. — Page 164.

Under the Martensen type of kenosis may be reckoned
Schoberlein {Die GriiiidleJiren des Hcils entivickelt aiis dcrn
Princip dcr Liebe, von Ludwig Schoberlein, Berlin 1851) and
Mr Hutton {Essays TJicological and Literaiy^.

Schoberlein represents Christ as becoming, in the Incar-
nation, a single human personality. The Ego of this hu-
man being is not a new one, having a beginning as a crea-
ture, above which His own eternal Ego hovers as a higher,
or with which the latter was united as the Spirit of God
with our soul, but is His own eternal Ego in full reality.
In time He is wholly Himself, the Ego of the Son of God
remains. But, nevertheless, in virtue of the human indi-
vidual nature received from the Virgin, He lives here below
wholly as man, and only as man, as piiciimatico-corporeal
(geistig-leibliche) human soul; that is. He has at once nat-
ural human feelings and impulses, and human self-con-
sciousness and will, in a word, complete human per-
sonality. The Son of God is become completely like us,
truly emptied of His 5J|a, His uopqjv Gsov, though not of
His Qeory/i. In respect of this pure human existence in
time. He is distinguished from us only by this, that He is
not, as we are, simply a single man among others, but —
seeing that in Him from eternity the whole of humanity is
fore-ordained by love to its holy destiny — although living
as single personality, yet bears in Himself the fulness of
the whole human race, is the second Adam, made for the
spiritual life, as the first was for the natural — is the per-
sonal centre, the blossom of humanity, the man xaO' l^oxt/v.
As the Son of God became a truly human personality,
Christ had a truly human development. There is noth-
ing in His life which exceeds the limits of human nature,
and which we through Him cannot attain to. Yet while

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note E. 419

emptied of His divine 86la (seiner gottlichen 86ia g-anz und
gar entaussert) with purely human consciousness and will,
perfectly like us, His divine, trinitarian being and govern-
ment suffered no interruption. " The love remains in all its
humility exalted: really sharing the life of the Beloved, it
preserves the specific peculiarity of its being. Such a pe-
culiarity in the Son of God is His trinitarian Being and
Rule. Action and Being in God, who is Spirit nodi' e^ox^jv,
the essence of which is energy, are inseparable." [" Die
Liebe bleibt in all ihrer Demuth erhaben: das Leben des
Geliebten wirklich theilend, bewahrt sie die spezifische
Eigenthiimlichkeit ihres Wesens. Eine solche ist aber
beim Sohne Gottes sein trinitarisches Seyn und Walten.
Wirken, und Seyn lasst sich bei Gott, dem Geiste xaQ'
e^oxjfv dessen Wesen evepyeia ist, nicht trennen " (p. 65).]
In the Son, therefore, there is a union of two ways of being
and existence. He wills and knows Himself double. " He.
the same Ego, who is from eternity to eternity, is also in
time, there eternal, here temporal, there without beginning
and end, here during the span of a human life, there as the
unlimited, here as the emptied, there with eternal conscious-
ness and divine will, here with temporal consciousness and
human will, but so that He, existing in the one, knows
Himself one with the other, and vice versa." [" Er, das-
selbe Ich, das von Ewigkeit ist und bis in Ewigkeit, ist
auch in der Zeit, dort ewig, hier zeitlich, dort ohne Anfang
und Ende, hier wahrend der Spanne eines Menschenlebens,
dort als der Unumschrankte, hier als der Entausserte, dort
mit ewigem Bewusstsein und gottlichem Willen, hier mit
zeitlichem Bewusstsein und menschlichem Willen, so aber,
dass er, in jenem seyend, sich Eins mit diesem weiss und
umgekehrt."] The author admits that this double life
wears an appearance of a double personality. This appear-
ance disappears, however, " as soon as we consider more
closely the relation of eternity and time, of heaven and
earth, into which the life of the Son of God appears di-
vided. We must not combine therewith the representation
as if the Son of God, during the time of His earthly sojourn,
had a life in eternity parallel to that in time, a life of tem-
poral succession during some thirty odd years, and within

420 The Humiliation of Christ.

the same space of time in which He here walks after the
flesh, there governs the world, or as if He existed in part
here on earth, in part in heaven, spatially separated from
the earth. Eternity stands not to time in a temporal, nor
heaven to earth in a spatial relation ; but the relation between
them is causal. Eternity is the cause of time, the endur-
ing life-ground out of which all time proceeds, and to
which it returns. Doubtless it also has its process of de-
velopment or unfolding, but not as time, and therefore not
temporally parallel with time. It is the existence-form of
the idea, of the complete life, which as life is as far as pos-
sible from being stagnant; whilst time is the form in which
development runs through the momenta of incompleteness
(in a succession of stages mutually exclusive). Time is
only a special mode of appearing, characteristic of creature-
ly being, which breaks forth out of the eternity of the idea,
and enters into it again without causing therein a temporal
interruption. One may therefore not properly say that
eternity is before time or after time, as little as during
time, understanding during in a temporal sense. Time is
for eternity and for the eternal consciousness a moment,
and that again not a temporally measurable, although it
unfolds itself in time and for the temporal consciousness as
an unending succession" [" sobald wir das Verhiiltniss von
Ewigkeit und Zeit, von Himmel und Erde, in welche das
Leben des Sohnes Gottes getheilt erscheint, naher be-
trachten. Man darf nicht die Vorstellung damit verbin-
den, als ob der Sohn Gottes die Zeit seines irdischen Auf-
enthaltes auch in der Ewigkeit, parallel mit jenem, als ein
gleichcs Nacheinander von etlichen und dreissig Jahren
durchlebe, und innerhalb desselben Zeitraums, in welchem
er hier nach dem Fleische einhergeht, dort die Welt re-
giere, als ob er zum Theil hier unten auf der Erde, zum
Theil oben im Himmel riiumlich getrennt von der Erde
existire. Die Ewigkeit steht zur Zeit nicht in einem zeit-
lichen, noch der Himmel zur Erde in einem raumlichen
Verhaltniss, sondern das Verhaltniss zwischen ihnen ist
ein causales. Die Ewigkeit ist die causa der Zeit, der
wahrende Lebensgrund, aus welchem alle Zeit aus- und
eingeht. Wohl hat auch sie einen Entwickelungs oder

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — N'ote E. 421

vielmehr Entfaltungsprozess, aber nicht wie die Zeit, und
darum nicht irgend zeitlich-parallel mit der Zeit. Sie ist
die Existenzform der Idee, des vollkommenen Lebens, das
als Leben eben nichts vveniger denn stagnirt, wahrend die
Zeit die Form ist in welcher die Entwicklung durch die
Momente der UnvoUkommenheit (in einem auschliessen-
den Nacheinander) verlaiift. Die Zeit ist nur eine besond-
ere Erscheinugsweise des creatiirlichen Seyns, welche aus
der Ewigkeit der Idee hervorbricht und in sie wieder ein-
geht, ohne in ihr selbst eine zeitliche Unterbrechung zu
verursachen. Man kann desshalb im Grunde audi nicht
sagen, dass die Ewigkeit vor der Zeit oder nach der Zeit
sei, ebenso wenig als wahrend, nemHch zeitlich-wahrend
der Zeit. Die Zeit ist fiir die Ewigkeit und fiir das ewige
Bewusstsein ein Moment, und zwar wiederum nicht ein
zeitlich messbarer, wiewohl er sich in der Zeit und fiir das
zeitliche Bewusstseyn als eine uniibersehbare Folge aus-
einanderlegt " (p. ^'jY^. Having further elaborated this doc-
trine of the relation of eternity to time and of heaven to
earth, Schoberlein goes on to apply the doctrine to Christ,
thus: " Transferring this now to the Son of God, who as
Son of man lives here below, we understand how His di-
vine Being existed neither temporally nor spatially out-
side His earthly personality, but His eternal glory and His
temporal self-exinanition. His dwelling in heaven and
conversation on earth, His eternal and His temporally un-
folding love were equally included in it. But this eternal
heavenly being and activity never entered into His experi-
ence in so far as He entered into the world with temporal
human consciousness, not to mention that He never used
it for Himself or for His redemption work. But even as,
to our mind, the eternal life appears as a life purely be-
yond, although we through faith bear it within us here be-
low, so was it with Him; only with the difference that it
represented itself to Him not simply as future, but as past,
because He had already had a place as an Ego in the
Trinity before the Incarnation. Therefore when He spoke
out of His own immediate consciousness, He spoke of a
glory which He had with the Father, and which the
Father will give Him again; and yet at other times He re-

42 2 The Hkmiliatioji of Christ.

ferred very distinctly to a presence and immanence of this
heavenly being and rule in His person, when He spoke as
a teacher, and not out of immediate experience, so that we
must maintain a real weVoxJzs, and yet at the same time the
j{Z7j6i<;, yea xftv^i^, without 7<pvipi? of the divine 5o?a on the
part of the incarnate Son of God." [" Tragen wir diess,
nun auf den Sohn Gottes iiber, der als Menschensohn hie-
nieden wandelt, so verstehen wir, wie sein gottliches Wesen
weder zeitlich noch raumlich ausser seiner irdischen Per-
sonlichkeit bestanden, sondern wie seine ewige Herrlich-
keit und seine zeitliche Entausserung, sein Wohnen im
Himmel und sein Wandel auf Erden, seine ewig unendliche
und seine zeitlich sich entfaltende Liebe gleicherweise in
ihr geschlossen gewesen. Aber diess ewig himmlische
Wesen und Wirken war ihm, insofern er in diese Welt mit
zeitlich menschlichen Bewusstsein, hereingetreten war, nie-
mals zur Erfahrung gekommen, geschweige dass er sich
desselben je fur sich oder sein Erlosungswerk bedient hatte.
Sondern ebenso wie unsrer Vorstellung das ewige Leben
als ein rein jenseitiges erscheint, obwohl wir durch den
Glauben es hienieden schon in uns tragen, so war's auch
bei ihm, nur mit dem Unterschiede dass sich ihm dasselbe
nicht bloss zukiinftig, sondern zugleich vergangen dar-
stellte, weil er bereits vor der Menschwerdung als Ich in der
Trinitat bestanden hatte. Er sprach desshalb, wo er aus
seinem unmittelbaren Bewusstsein heraus redete, von einer
Herrlichkeit, die er bei dem Vater hatte, und die der Vater
ihm wieder geben wird; und doch wies er andrerseits selbst
wiederum sehr bestimmt auf eine Gegenwart und Imma-
nenz dieses seines himmlischen Seyns und Waltens in seiner
Person bin, wo er lehrend und nicht aus unmittelbarer
Erfahrung heraus redete, so dass wir eine wirkliche h£'voj6is,
und doch zugleich die >cri/6i?, ja xpv'^i'=> ohne xpvtpii, von der
gottlichen d6ia des menschgewordenen Gottessohnes be-
haupten miissen " (pp. 69, 70).]

The English Essayist keeps clear of the metaphysics by
which the German theologian endeavours to justify the
theory of a double life — that is, a real yet relative kenosis.
He simply asserts its possibility in the following terms:
"And this brings me to the supposed metaphysical con-

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note E. 423

tradiction in the fact of Incarnation, which I used to think
fatal. That difficulty was, that an infinite beings could
not become finite, or take up a human form, except as a
mere simulated appearance. To me it would be far more
painful to believe in the unreality of Christ's finite nature
and human condition, than to give up Christianity alto-
gether; in fact, it would involve giving up Christ to believe
it for a moment. But this metaphysical contradiction,
which once seemed so formidable, does not now exist for
me at all. That the Son of God, even though eternal, co-
eternal with the Father, may pass through any changes
through which any derived being may pass, seems unde-
niable. When we note how little the powers which we
ourselves possess, and which seem to belong to us, are
identified with our personality, — how, by a stroke of paraly-
sis, for example, a man of genius is stripped of all his richest
qualities of mind, and reduced to a poor solitary Ego, — or,
if that be not so, how he lives in two worlds, in one of
which he is feeble, helpless, isolated will, and in the other
(if there be another in which he is still his old self) a man
of genius still, — when we note this, it seems to me to be
simply the most presumptuous of all presumptuous assump-
tions to deny that the Son of God might have really become
what He seemed to be, a finite being, a Jew of Jewish
thought and prepossessions, and liable to all the intellec-
tual errors which distinguished the world in which He lived.
If there is an indestructible moral individuality which con-
stitutes self, which is the same when wielding the largest
powers and when it sits alone at the dark centre, which,
for anything I know, may even live under a double set of
conditions at the same time, I can see no metaphysical
contradiction in the Incarnation" (pp. 259, 260). Mr. Hut-
ton, in speaking of Christ's temptation, represents His
superiority to all temptations as arising out of the predom-
inant passion of His will, which " prevented the slightest
trembling in the balance " (p. 261). It will be observed
that the author goes a considerable length in the assertion
of Christ's ignorance, making Him share the prejudices of
a Jew and the intellectual errors of His time. The state-
ment of opinion here does not seem sufficiently guarded.

424 The Humiliation of Christ.

Does not the all-important limit witJwut sin exclude pre-
judices into which a moral element enters, and all errors,
even intellectual ones, which would influence conduct ?

Note F.— Page 166.

I am acquainted with the theological views of Zinzendorf
only through J. A. 'QcngeVs Abriss der so genannten Briider-
gemeine, and the recently published work of Plitt, Zinzen-
dorf's Thcologie dargcstellt von D. Heinnann Plitt, Gotha
1869-74. In the first volume of the last-named work the
author gives an account of the original sound doctrine of
Zinzendorf, as taught by him during the period 1723-1742;
in the second he gives the history of the time of morbid
malformations in Zinzendorfs doctrinal system (1743-1750);
and in the third he exhibits that system in its restored final
form, as set forth in works published between 1750 and
1760. Plitt disputes the accuracy of the representation
given by Schneckenburger and others of the Zinzendorfian
Christology, as of a purely metamorphic character. He
admits, of course, that the Christ of Zinzendorf, especially
during the second period, is to all intents and purposes a
man whose Godhead, far from being apparent to others,
was for the most part hidden from Himself. But he denies
that the Zinzendorfian Christ is one who has ceased to be
God, and quotes passages to show that Zinzendorf con-
ceived of the Incarnation as the assumption of a human
soul with a body, and taught an indissoluble hypostatic
union of the humanity so assumed and the Godhead. He
thinks that the idea present to Zinzendorfs mind was, that
in the Incarnation an intimate union was freely formed by
the divine Ego with a human soul, and through it with a
body, in virtue of which the God-man in the ground of His
being continued to be God, but completed His collective
outward and inward life in human form. Therein was in-
volved not an essential and central, but a modal peripheral
alteration of His Godhead. [In Zinzendorfs own words:
" Der Heiland hat von seinen Schatzen und Herrlichkeiten,
die er als Sohn und rechtmassiger Besitzer rov itclv hatte,
schon disponirt, da er seine Gottheit verlassen hat bei der

Appendix. — Lcchire IV. — Note F. 425

HEv(adt<;, beim Hingang in die Zeit, in der Mutter Leib als
das erste Grab. Sie blieben ein depositum in der Hand des
Vater, sowie er hernach am Kreutze seine Seele audi
deponirte bis zur Wiedervereinigung mit der menschlichen
Hiille " (ii. p. 166).] The kenosis is here asserted in strong
terms; yet Zinzendorf guards himself against a view of the
kenosis which excludes the Unio Jiypostatica, as when he
says: " In the kenosis the reference is not to the inhesive
divinity, rc3 eez'&j: He was God throughout. One cannot
conceive of a finger, hair, or morsel of skin which stood not
in a iinione Jiypostatica with His Godhead." [" Die Rede
ist bei der Kenosis nicht von seiner inhasiven Gottlichkeit,
rap Beia)-. er ist Gott gewesen alle Augenblicke. Man kann
sich keinen Finger, kein Harlein, kein Hautlein vom Heilande
concipiren, das nicht in einer 7inione Jiypostatica mit seiner
Gottheit stunde " (ii. p. 166).] Plitt cites one passage in
which Zinzendorf seems inclined even to entertain the
idea of a double life of the Logos, one of passivity of qui-
escence in the man Jesus, and one of full activity in relation
to the world, [The words are: " Es ware fiir den Schopfer
der Welt nicht zu viel wenn er zugleich die ganze Welt
regiert hatte und ware zugleich Zimmermann in Nazaret
gewesen. Denn es ist bekannt, dass es Leute gibt, die
zugleich schreiben und dictiren und zugleich horen konnen "
(ii. p. 174).] The truth appears to be, that Zinzendorf had
no carefully thought out consistent theory of Christ's per-
son, but expressed himself in strong unqualified language
on whatever aspects of the subject were congenial to his
religious feelings, and so gave utterance to views not easily
reconcilable with each other, and referable to different
types of thekenotic theory. Plitt remarks: " Ontologically
and psychologically considered, Zinzendorf is not the ade-
quate representative of his own fundamental views (Grund-
anschauung). But we know that properly speculative ques-
tions are not his affair, and that escapade (Auschreitung,
i.e. the double life of the Logos), in a psychological respect,
is only a hasty thought thrown out hypothetically as a meta-
physical possibility which he has no wish to make his own "
(ii. p. 174). The kenosis seems to have been, conceived by
Zinzendorf habitually as absolute, not relative, as in the

426 The Hiuniliation of Christ.

following passage: " euevcodEv savrov; with His whole heart
He disengaged Himself from the work and activity of His
proper Godhead, when He had to enter, and wished to
enter, into tim.e. He delivered over to His Father the
government of the world so heartily, so directly, ?>o plcnarie,
that all things whereof He was the sole Lord and Master
appeared to Him when on earth not otherwise than as His
P'ather's business . . . and He had received all out of His
Father's hand, into which He had Himself previously
placed all " [" £H£vw6ev iavrov; er hat sich von ganzen Herz-
en, da er in die Zeit gehen sollte und gehen wollte, von der
Wirkung und Activitat seiner eigenen Gottheit losgesagt.
Er hatte seinem Vater das Regiment iiber die Welt so
herzlich, so gerade, so plejiarie iibertragen, dass alle Dinge,
davon er doch allein der Herr und Meister war, zu der Zeit,
da er auf Erden wandelte, ihm nicht anders vorgekommen
sind, als seines Vaters Geschafte. . . und er Alles aus
seines Vaters Hand genommen hat, in die er zuvor Alles
erst selbst gestellet hat " (ii. p. 172).] How complete the
kenosis was in Zinzendorfs view may be gathered from
such a statement as this, that as the man Jesus Christ was
ignorant of all sorts of things, He, at least at times, did not
know, or had it not present to His thoughts, that He was
God (ii. p. 172). Also from the graphic descriptions given
of the psychological life and human development of Jesus
as a boy, a youth, and a man; and in His various relations
to the Jewish hierarchy, the political authorities, and so-
ciety; and in His work as Redeemer. As a child, Jesus
was a diligent scholar, and got His head filled with Bible
texts, but also with much Rabbinical rubbish; for He was
no spiritus particular'is. He had a spiritus tmiversalis cathol-
iciis; He was a man who from earliest childhood practised
obedience, and whose work was not to inquire whether His
parents or the Rabbis in Nazareth were right or wrong.
[" Er war von einer viel zu simplen Art und ordinairem
Naturell, als dass er sich sollte die Miihe gegeben haben, in
seiner Vorfahren Anordnung zu storen, zu raffiniren, und
zu scrupuliren, oder objectiones gegen seine Anfuhrer zu
machen; sondern ich glaube von Herzen, was sie ihm
vorgelegt haben zu lernen das hat er gelernt."] But the

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note F. 427

Holy Spirit helped Him, expounding the true to Him,
making Him forget the superfluous, gathering for Him the
quintessence, mtnnn ex stercore, and writing it on His heart
(ii. pp. 175, 176). The description of the Temptation is
very graphic. Jesus had been weakened in body and mind
by forty days' fasting, so that " when Satan came upon
Him with all his angelic power and panurgy, the Saviour
was directly, as we say, a man without head, did not know
where His head stood, and the Holy Spirit, whose foster-
child and Jesulein (little Jesus) He was, had to suggest to
Him at the moment three little words, which might meet
the exigencies of the hour." [" Da der Satan ihm mit
aller seiner Engelskraft und Panurgie auf den Hals trat,
der Heiland gerade, wie man redt, ein Mensch ohne Kopf
sein, nicht mehr hat wissen soUen, wo ihm der Kopf steht,
und der heilige Geist, dessen Pflegekind und Jesulein er wai .
ihm zu der Stunde hat mussen drei Spriichelchen einfallen
lassen, die da haben ausrichten konnen, was zu der Stunde
auszurichten war " (ii. p. 183).] Even in working miracles
— as in raising Lazarus — the human weakness of Jesus ap-
pears. The rising of Lazarus was, according to Zinzendorf,
the only instance of bringing a dead person back to life.
Therefore, when Jesus learned that Lazarus was dead and
biiried — therefore really dead, — He was troubled in spirit
(lest He should not be able to raise him). Arrived at the
grave, He prayed, "as a child can pray now, a prayer
which sounded like the answers which He had given in the
desert and on the pinnacle of the temple. All ordinary
authority, all His cheerful manner ceased; He behaved
quite humanly, and as one quite disheartened. He might
also mark that that was His last miracle, and that the
wickedness of the people would become so great over the
present miracle that it would certainly cost Him His life.
The full status exinanitionis was therefore there. And
when the deed was done, and the dead man raised, and
God had heard Him, He went away at length to His own
predestined death, with passion- and death-fear." ["Wie
ein Kind beten kann heutzutage, ein Gebet, das natiirlich
klang, wi^ die Antworten, die er in der Wiisten und auf der
Zinne des Tempels gegeben. AUe gewohnliche Autoritat,

428 The Humiliatio7i of Christ,

alle seine muntere Art cessirte, es ging ganz menschlich zu,
ganz kleinlaut. Er mochte audi merken, dass das sein
letztes Wunder sein und die Bosheit der Leute so gross
werden wiirde uber dem itzigen Wunder, dass es ihm nun
gewiss sein Leben kosten wiirde. Es war also der voile
status exinanitonis da. Und da es nun geschehen war, und
er den Todten auferweckt, und Gott ihn erhort hatte, so
ging er endlich an seinen bestimmten Tod mit Liedens-
und Todesfurcht " (ii. p. 184).]

Note G. — Page 169.

Cyril refers to the metamorphic theory of the Incarnation
in his work Advei'sus Nestori?i?n, lib. i. cap. i. , where he
expresses the opinion, to put it briefly, that kenosis in the
metamorphic sense, or in the sense of dopotentiation, is
excluded by the skenosis. Having quoted John i. 14, he
says: " The Word became flesh, manifesting the power of
the true union, that, of course, which is conceived nad'
vTtudradiv; but because He also says that He sojourned
among us. He does not allow us to think of the Logos, by
■nature from God, as passing over into earth-born flesh. I
h.ncy an ill-instructed person might think that the divine
uncreated nature was susceptible of change, and could part
with its essential properties and be transformed into some-
thing different from what it is, and by alterations be
subjected to the measures of the creature." ['^ Sapna usv
tq)7f zov Xoyov, rrjs dXr/Bovi ivcjdsGoi, drjXov de on ziji naO' vitudradtv
voovf.ievrj's, empavi^oov rrjv Svvautv Std de rov uai ev ru.uv ccvzov
dHrjv(Sdai Xe'ysiv, ovk Eqjirjdi vosiv sii ddpxa zrfv and yiji zov au
(-Ieov uazd (pvdiv ^Ezaxooprjdai Xoyov. ' fLrjOi] i^iev dv oi'^ai, zii zcov
ov Xiav yjipifSooKozoov o zi itozi kdziv r/ Osia ze uai yEvvrjzov itarzoi
litEKEiva cpvdi?, zdxoc ifov Tioci zpoTtjji Eivai dEHZiKT/v avzijv, xai
Kazc^paOvufjd/xi usv SvvadOai zwv iSioov, xai ovdtcoScai avzij jcpod-
■7tEq)V7i6z(Jor dyaBcav, /iszacpvvai Si (sditEp eH EZEpov zi, itap oitep
idti, xai zoii zrji HzidEooi EyHaQixedBai juezpoi?, aXXotCM^dsdi, xai UEza-
/SoXaii dSoxT/zoDi v7tEvr/v£y/u£'rT/v."] But this is impossible, the
evangelist testifies when he says: " The Logos tabernacled
among us, although become flesh." [Edxi'/v&:)dEv ev i)uiv xahoi
ddpzysyoyi^i oXo^oi.'j Cyril discusses the same question at

Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note G. 429

greater length in his tract Adv. Anthroponiorphitas. The
views against which he argues in that work are similar to
those of Gess, that the Logos took only flesh and was
Himself in place of a human soul (c. xv.); that He emptied
the heavens of His divinity when He became man {jcEvovi
TTJi savrou Qs6t7^roi dcpij}^£ rovi ovpavovi, c. xix.); that Christ
could sin, because He was made in the likeness of men, c.
xxiii. In c. xviii. of this treatise, Cyril discusses at some
length another form of the kenotic theory, viz. that the
Son, as to the dignity of His divinity, was still with the
Father when He became man and was on the earth; but
that, as to His hypostasis. He was not [KeHercjro yap Ttdda,

cJS avToi (padi, Jiai viotiki] vTtodradi? ek re rdov ovpavcSv, xai avrSv

T(Sv itarpiKcSv n6XTtoov'\. In the former form of the theory
the kenosis affects both nature and person of the Logos; in
the latter, the person only.

LECTURE VI.

Note A. — Page 263.

The question has been discussed by writers on Chris,
tology, whether Christ had any particular temperament.
The advocates of the ideaHty of Christ's humanity, whether
those who believe Christ to be more than man, or only man,
agree in answering the question in the negative. Thus
Ebrard maintains that the pleromatic man was, on the one
hand, endowed with all natural as well as spiritual gifts,
though these gifts might not be all developed. His vooation
not requiring it; and on the other, was free from all one-sided-
ness of endowment, and also of temperament {Dogmatik, ii.
23). Martensen, to the same effect, remarks: " As every man
has in his temperament for his development not only a sup-
porting foundation, but a confining limit, it belongs to the
sinlessness of the second Adam that He is not bound in
the sinful one-sidedness of temperament, as it belongs to
His ideal perfection that no single temperament can be
regarded as predominating in Him. We find in the new
Adam, as well the careless light mind, which lets every
day have its own trouble, who is unconcerned as the lily in
the field and the bird under the heaven, as also the deep
pain-fraught sensibility, out of whose inmost heart, in a
much wider sense than out of the old prophet, the com-
plaint resounds: ' Where is there a sorrow like my sorrow .-''
We find in Him, as well the quiet spirit unmoved by the
world, as the powerfully-stirred, vehement, and zealous
spirit, while none of these contrasts is perverted into one-
sidedness" {Dogmatik, p. 259). Liebner takes a similar
view {Christologie, p. 315). On the other hand, Keim finds

Appendix. — Lecture VI. — Note A. 431

in the gospel records clear traces of individual idiosyncrasy.
He ascribes to Jesus a combination of the choleric, san-
guine, and melancholic temperaments, and regards Him in
this combination as a genuine Jew, a Jew of the strongest
southern melancholy type. [" In der Wahrnehmungslust
ein Sanguiniker, im Feuereifer ein Choleriker, in Beidem
ein achter Galilaer, ist er durch seinen Frommigkeitszug,
wie er ihn durch Erziehung anlernte und von Natur immer
schon im Vollmass besass, ein achtester Jude schlechthin,
ja ein Jude vom kriiftigsten siidlichen melancholischen
Typus gewesen "] {Gcschichte Jiesii, Dritte Bearbeitung,
1873, pp. Ill, 112). Of the melancholy religious disposi-
tion, Keim finds proof in the love of solitude and of re-
ligious devotion. He discovers no trace of the phlegmatic
temperament (vid. Jesu von Nasara, i. 442). It is proba-
bly not advisable to enter into minute discussions on such a
question; but I confess I see no evidence in the gospel of that
generalized humanity which the advocates of the Ideal Man
theory are so fond of ascribing to Jesus. I see in Him traces
of a strongly marked, though not one-sided, individuality —
poetry, passion, intensity, vehemence, all that gives pathos,
power, and human interest to character, even humour not
excepted. Generally speaking, the reality, not the ideality,
of the humanity is the thing that lies on the surface; although
the latter is not to be denied, nor the many-sidedness which
is adduced in proof of it by Martensen and others.

Note B. — Page 268.

In the text I have made no reference to the views enter-
tained on the subject of the flesh by those whose theolog-
ical opinions are controlled by a naturalistic philosophy.
I propose to give a brief account and criticism of these in
this note. Theologians of this school, then, bluntly deny
the possibility of a real, thoroughgoing experience of
temptation without the presence in the flesh of sinful pro-
clivity. They maintain that such sinful proclivity did exist
in Christ's flesh, and that to teach anything else is to give
a doketic view of His humanity, in this agreeing with the
Adoptianists, Menken and Irving. They maintain further,

432 The Humiliation of Christ.

and in this they go beyond the theologians just referred to,
that sinful proclivity is inseparable from the flesh, is no
mere accident of theyv?//, but an essential characteristic of
the 6dpl. In fact, they do not believe in a fall at all, or in
any change in the physical constitution of human nature.
They regard the " fall " as a fiction of church theology,
arrived at by an illegitimate combination of Paul's doctrine
concerning the 6dpc. in the 7th chapter of Romans with his
doctrine of sin coming into the world through Adam in
the 5th. The true origin of sin is the proclivity to sin in-
herent in the flesh; it was this that gave rise to sin in
Adam, it is this which gives rise to sin in all men. When
it said that sin came into the world through Adam,
it is merely meant that he was the first person in whom
the sinful propensity of the 6dp'i manifested itself. This
doctrine of the inherent sinful proclivity of the 6dp'i it is
maintained, is the doctrine taught in the' New Testament,
and especially in the Epistles of [Paul. In this opinion
Baur, Pfleiderer, and Holsten concur. In proof, Baur points
to the peculiar phrase, employed by Paul to describe our
Lord's humanity in Rom. viii. 3: "God sending His Son in
the likeness of Sinftll Jlesh" (^ev djuoicouari dapKO? djicapnas),
which he says is an attempt to cover an antinomy between
the sinlessness of Christ's character and the sinfulness in-
separable from corporeal life. Even Christ's flesh was sinful,
but reverence would not permit Paul to say so; therefore, in-
stead ofsayingin theflesh of sin, he adopts the milder phrase:
"in the likeness of the flesh of sin; " so saving Christ's per-
sonal holiness by the adoption of a virtually doketic view of
His humanity ( Vorlcsungen ilber ne2itestamcntlicJie Thcologie,
p. 189). Pfleiderer seeks to prove the same position by laying
stress on the epithet ddpmvoi in Rom. vii. 14. Assuming
that adjectives in ivoi always denote the material out of which
anything is made, he interprets the passage thus: I am
made of flesh, I have a material body, therefore I am sold
under sin. That is, man is dapxiHoi, opposed to good in
his life tendency, because he is ddpuivoi; that is, " because
he has flesh-matter for His substance, in the fact of his
being physically flesh lies the inevitable ground of his
moral fleshliness " {Pauti?usmus, p. 56). Pfleiderer agrees

Appe?idix. — Lecture VI. — Note B. 433

with Baur in the interpretation of the phrase already quoted
from Rom. viii., finding in it traces of one of the antinomies
with which Paulinism abounds. And along with this, it is
interesting to note, goes a construction put by him and
others of the same school on the death of Christ, similar to
that given by the Adoptianists and Irving, Christ's death
was the crucifixion of His own sinful flesh, and by way
of type and first-fruits, of the sinful flesh of His people.
The condemnation of sin in the flesh, spoken of in Rom.
viii. 3, signifies the judicial execution of sin as centred in
Christ's own flesh. Holsten expresses similar views in his
work, Ziim Evangeliinn des Petriis und des Paultis.

Now there arc several facts which raise a strong pre-
sumption against the truth of this Manichaean interpre-
tation of Paul's teaching on the subject of the flesh. In the
first place, it is decidedly un-Hebrezv. Secondly, accord-
ing to this theory the flesh must be regarded as unsancti-
fiable, whereas in Paul's Epistles it is not so regarded.
Sometimes, indeed, it might seem as if the apostle did
regard the flesh as hopelessly evil, as when he speaks of
killing the deeds of the body, and in the phrase: " this
body of death." But in other places the body is represented
as the subject of sanctification not less than the soul or
spirit, as in I Cor. vi., where the body is called the temple
of the Holy Ghost, and it is set forth as a duty arising
directly out of the consciousness of redemption to glorify
God in the body; and in 2 Cor. vii. i, in which it is set forth
as a Christian duty to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness
of the flesh and spirit — the same need and the same pos-
sibility of sanctification being implied in both cases. In
proof that this text bears against the theory of the essential
sinfulness of the flesh being Pauline, it may be mentioned
that Holsten disputes its genuineness, the whole passage
from vi. 14 to vii. i being, he thinks, foreign to the Pauline
mode of thought {Zian Evangel, p. 387). Yet, again,
against this Manichaean interpretation is the consideration
that such a doctrine, teaching a dualistic opposition be-
tween flesh and spirit, and implying that the flesh, as dis-
' inct from the spirit, is essentially evil, ought to be accom-
panied by a pagan Eschatology, that is, by the doctrine

434 ^^ Huiniliation of Christ.

that the life after death will be a purely spiritual disem-
bodied one. Such, however, was not the view of Paul; the
object of his hope being not the immortality of the naked
soul, but the immortality of man, body and soul, implying"
a resurrection of the dead, — a noteworthy fact, whatever
difficulties may beset the distinction taken by Paul between
the natural body and the spiritual body.

The exegetical argument in support of the interpretation in
question is by no means unassailable. Granting that dapxtvo';
in Rom. vii. 14 means fleshy, " of flesh," not carnal in the
ethical sense, the text does not necessarily mean every
man who possesses a material organism is inevitably a slave
to sin. We can assign a definite meaning to 6dpjiivo<; with-
out going that length, and that whether we take the
sentence as containing a personal statement about Paul
himself, or as a statement about humanity at large, per-
sonal in form, universal in scope. Take it as a personal
statement, we can easily see why Paul should here prefer
ddpuivoi to dapHiHui. The latter epithet conveys the idea
of a man whose whole character and conduct are under the
dominion of the fleshly mind. But he could not consist-
ently characterize himself thus, and at the same time rep-
resent himself as he does immediately after as with his
mind serving the law of God. He must divide himself into
two parts, roui and 6dp^, and indicate distinctly the side of
his double self on which he is open to the influence of evil.
This he does by the use o{ 6dpMiyoi. It is as if he had said:
I am vovi vor/riHoi, and so far I am on the side of good; but
I am also ddpi, ddpuivoi, and on that side of my nature I am
on the side of evil. The statement certainly implies that
for some reason or other the ddpt, has an evil bias, but it
conveys no hint as to the cause of this bias. It is a fact of
consciousness, not a philosophico-anthropological doctrine
that is enunciated. Take the statement, again, as a univer-
sal one, the I who speaks being not the individual ego of
Paul, but the ego of the race: in this case also we can see
the appropriateness of the term ddpnivos as serving to give
universality to the proposition. It may be or it may not
be true of every man that he is dapuiHoi, z-A.xnvi\\y - minded—
that is a proposition to be proved, not assumed; but it is

Appendix. — Lecture VI. — Note B. 43 5

certainly true of every man that he is edpmvoi. And this
being certain, it is further certain that every man is more
or less in bondage to sin. That seems to be what Paul
means to convey in this verse. It is in effect a syllogism.
Wherever there is flesh there is sin; I am partaker of flesh,
therefore I am under law to sin. But does this syllogism
imply a metaphysical doctrine, to the effect that flesh,
organized matter, from its own inherent nature involves for
all associated with it enslavement to sin .-' No; it implies
that sinful bias is universal in the human race, but not that
it is absolutely necessary. The categories of universality
and necessity are not co-extensive. After it has been
ascertained that as a matter of fact sinful bias inheres in
human nature viewed as ensouled flesh, all the world over,
it remains to be determined whence comes this universal
bias. It may arise from the nature of matter, or it may be
an accident, a vice of nature, introduced at a given time,
and transmitted by inheritance. Both of these explanations
have been given, and we are not entitled to assume that
either of them is, as a matter of course, the correct one.

Passing now to the other text, Rom. viii. 3. With refer-
ence to the phrase: ev di.101001.1. 6. d., there are two questions
— (i) Is the emphasis to be laid on the likeness or on the
implied unlikeness .'' (2) Do the words 6(xpl duapriai con-
stitute a single idea, implying that sin is an essential at-
tribute of the flesh, or are they separable, so that d/iapriai
points at an accidental, though it may be universal, property
of the 6dpi, ? As to the former, the implied unlikeness is
regarded as the thing to be emphasized by Baur, Zeller,
and Hilgenfeld, and the interpretation they put on the
clause is, that Paul regarded sin as an essential property
of flesh (thus making ddp^ djuapria? a single idea); but he
hesitated to ascribe to Christ sinful flesh, and therefore said
not that Christ was made sinful flesh, but that He was made
in the likeness of sinful flesh, implying likeness in all re-
spects, sin excepted. Others, among whom may be specially
mentioned Liidemann (Die Anthropologie des Ap. Paulus),
agreeing with the fore-mentioned writers in taking ddp^
d).i(xpziai as one idea, differ from them in regard to 6/ioigju.,
emphasizing not the unlikeness, but the likeness, and hold-

43^ The Hitmiliation of Christ.

ingf that it is Paul's purpose boldly to teach that God
furnished His Son with a flesh made exactly like ours, in
this special respect that it, too, was a flesh of sin. Not
that Liidemann means to say that Paul did not believe in
the sinlessness of Christ. He contends that this does not
follow, and that there is no antinomy involved, such as
Pfleiderer asserts. For though di-iapvLa was immanent in
the flesh of Christ, as in that of other men, it was only
objective sin, not subjective — it never came to TtapafSadii;
it was prevented from doing so by the ayiov Ttvevjua, who
guided all Christ's conduct, and kept the flesh in perfect
subjection. A third class of interpreters, such as Weiss
and Hofmann, follow the old orthodox view, which treats
ddp^ and duaprla as expressive of separable ideas, and take
6i.ioiQo).ta as implying a limitation of likeness in respect of
the sinfulness of ordinary human nature. Now, none of these
three interpretations is exegetically self-evident. They are
all exegetically admissible, and our decision must turn upon
other considerations. I may observe that, assuming Baur's
view oi kv omnoo/x. to be correct, it is an argument in favour
of the separability of ad pi and d/iapn'oc. For why should it be
assumed that the motive of the limitation is mere shrinking
in reverence from applying a principle to Christ which is
firmly held by the writer as a necessary truth .'' If Paul
believed that where pdp^ is there must be sin, duapria at
least, if not 7capdf5a6ii, would he, whose general habit of
thinking was so bold, have hesitated to ascribe it to Christ
also; would he not rather have done what Liidemann says
he has done, viz. ascribed to Christ's flesh djitapria, and then
sought to guard His personal sinlessness by emphasizing
the indwelling of the Divine Spirit as the means of pre-
venting djuapria, sin objective, from breaking out into itapd-
ftcxdii, sin subjective } Surely he was more likely to do this
than to adopt the weak expedient of covering over a difli-
culty with a word.

But this view of Liidemann's has its own peculiar weak-
nesses, which appear most clearly in connection with the
doctrine of the Atonement, which naturally goes along
with it — that already referred to in connection with the
name of Pfleiderer, the theory of Redemption by sample.

Appendix. — Lecture VI. — Note C. 437

It is a theory very open to criticism. First, if the ajxaprut
in Christ's flesh was a thing which could be completely
kept under by the holy will of Christ, was it not morally
insignificant, therefore not calling for judicial condem-
nation ? Is there not something theatrical in this pouring
out of divine wrath on the flesh of Christ for the objective
dixapria latent therein ? Then, how is this judicial condem-
nation of diiocpria in Christ's flesh to be made available for
us, in the way of keeping the vicious bias of our flesh from
breaking out into Ttapafiadii} The communication of that
Holy Spirit which helped Christ to be sinless would give
us real assistance, but is it not apparent how that judicial
execution of the Redeemer's sinful ddpl will. We may say
to ourselves: in that death my flesh was crucified, but this
mystic faith will not help us here. The faith-mysticism
acts on the imagination and the heart powerfully, but
hardly on the ddp^. It remains as obstinately opposed as
ever to all good, for anything that the condemnation on
Calvary effected. Instead of faith-mysticism we must have
recourse to sacramental magic, and say that in the Lord's
Supper the Lord's resurrection-body, purged from duapvia
by the fire of the Cross, passes into our bodies, and becomes
there a transforming influence. That seems the only way
open, and it was the way which Irving's adventurous spirit
took in carrying out his pet theory. On the biblical mean-
ing of the term ddpq, the reader may consult Laidlaw on
the Bible Doctrine of Man, Cunningham Lectures, 7th series.

Note C— Page 282.

Faustus Socinus expresses his views on this point in his
famous Dispntatio De Jesii CJiristo Servatore, pars ii. caput
xxiii. The heading of the chapter is as follows: Ostenditur,
Christum revera sacerdotem non fuisse ante suum in coelum
ingressum, hacque in re legali pontifici esse dissimilem, etc.
In proof of this position, he remarks: Quod ante mortem
saceidos seu pontifex noster non esset probatur per verba
ilia ad finem 2 cap. illius Epist. (ad Hebraeos), nnde debjut
per omnia fratribus similari; ut misericors fieret (sive esset)
et fidelis Pontifex, etc. Ex quibus satis constare potest,

43^ The Humiliation of Christ.

Christum, antequam omnes infirmitates nostras, inter quas
mors praecipua est, expertus esset, pontificem revera factum
non fuisse. Neque enim credendum est, eum pontificem
revera fuisse constitutum prius, quam vere fidelis et miseri-
cors esse posset. Idem manifestum facere videntur ea
verba, cap. v. 5 : Sic et Christiis non semetipsnm clarificavit
jit Pontifex fieret, sed qui locutns est ad cnni, Filius mens es
tu; ego hodie gemd te. Hinc enim apparet non prius
creatum vere pontificem a Deo Christum fuisse, quam ei
diceretur: Filins mens es tn, etc. Sed id ante resurrectionem
ei dictum non fuit, teste Paulo, Act. xiii. 33. Ergo ante
resurrectionem, et sic antequam pateretur, Christus sacerdos
inauguratus vere non fuit.

Quod autem etiam post mortem, antequam coelos con-
scenderet, pontifex consecratus non fuerit, probant verba
ilia ad finem 7 cap., Talis enim decebat, etc. Ubi liquido
perspicitur, consentaneum fuisse, ut is, qui pontifex noster
futurus esset, sublimior coelis fieret. Quoad igitur sublimior
coelis non est factus, nostrum pontificem eum esse non
decuit; nee porro fuit. Probat idem id, quod cap. viii. 4,
scriptum est: Si enim esset super terram, nee esset sacerdos.
Ex quo intelligitur, ad sacerdotium Christi perficiendum
mansionem in coelis requiri, et extra coelum eum sacer-
dotem esse non posse. Multa alia ex eadem epistola afferri
possent, quae idem comprobarent. Sed haec satis fuerint.

Exhac autem Christi, et antiqui sacerdotis dissimilitudine,
id verum esse, vehementer confirmatur, quod etiam citra
eam a me ex ipsorum collatione jam demonstratum fuit;
non expiasse videlicet Christum peccata nostra, antequam
in coelum ingrederetur. Nam si legalis pontifex qui vere,
et perfecte sacerdos jam erat, non ante expiasse peccata
populi dici poterat, quam in Sanctuarium ingressus esset,
quanto magis id de Christo ante suum in coelum ingressum
(coelum enim hac in re Sanctuario illi respondere, antea
demonstratum fuit) dicendum est, cum ante ingressum
istum sacerdos nondum esset consecratus } Coepit quidem
quodammodo hie in terris Christi sacerdotium, sicut et
oblatio coepit. Sed utrumque in coelis absolutum fuit, que
pro nobis praecursor ingressus Jesus secundum ordinem
Mclchisedec in aeternum pontifex est factus, Heb. vi. 20.

LECTURE VII.

Note A.— Page 316.

Having referred in the text to the views of the Atonement
set forth in two texts from one of Paul's Epistles, I may
here add some further observations on the Pauline doctrine
on that great theme. That Paul held the doctrine of an
imputed or objective righteousness ascribed to him, there
can be no reasonable doubt. Pfleiderer, in his able delinea-
tion of Paulinism, finds in Paul's Epistles the two correlative
ideas of an objective sin and an objective righteousness
treated as transferable quantities, in this confirming the
Reformed interpretation of Paulinism by his exegesis, while
dissipating all the great theological ideas of Paulinism by
his philosophy. As to the text, 2 Cor. v. 21, the word
duapviav applied to Christ does not mean sin-offering.
Paul is not thinking in this place of the sacrificial system,
but of the general principle of God's dealings with Christ,
and those who join themselves to Him. On the one hand,
Christ is treated as a sinner, though personally sinless, as
far as that is possible for one who is personally holy. The
main fact covered by the term is Christ's experience of
death, the common lot of sinful mortals. That alone,
without any additional particulars, in Paul's view sufficed
to constitute Christ's sin, to bring Him under the category
of sin. He reasoned thus: death is the wages of sin;
Christ died, therefore Christ was for the Providence of God
as a sinner. But as He was sinless. He must have been
treated as a sinner for our sakes, who are real sinners. The
truth therefore is, that He was made sin that we might
become righteous, and so escape the penalty of sin. The

440 The Humiliation of Christ.

idea of substitution is thus involved. But it is important
to remark, that even in this text the principle of repre-
sentation or solidarity underlies that of substitution. For
Paul, as for the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is a
great principle that Sanctifier and sanctified are all of one.
He would apply it to all parts of Christ's work. Whatever
belongs to the state of those to be saved, the Saviour must
experience; the saved, on the other hand, receiving from
Him a blessing answering to that feature in their natural
condition which Christ becomes subject to, and thereby
removes. Thus: Are the Jews under the law } then Christ
must become under the law, and so redeem them which
were under it, that they may receive sonship. Or, again:
Are men subject to the curse of the law, or all who fail to
comply with its behests .'' then Christ must become subject
to that curse, as He did in its most repulsive form. So
here, in 2 Cor. v. 21: Because we are sinners, Christ must
become sin; and the result is, we become partalcers of
righteousness. The Epistle to the Hebrews extends the
^application of the principle to Christ's participation in
human nature, to the fear of death, to death itself, and to
the experience of temptation. The principle essentially
signifies moral identity between Saviour and saved, —
community of interest, of experience, and of privilege. It
brings the two parties closer together than the vicarious
principle implied in the sacrificial view presented in Rom.
iii. 25, where Christ is called a iXa6rr]piov, that is, a pro-
pitiatory sacrifice. There Christ appears merely as a
substitute, here He is more — a representative, a central
person in whom the race of Adam is gathered up into a
moral unity, having one responsibility and one interest, all
things, even moral characteristics, being as far as possible
common; even sin and righteousness, which one would
think inseparable from persons being treated as separable
entities, passing freely from the one side to the other — sin
to the Sinless One, righteousness to the unrighteous. This
doctrine of the moral solidarity of Christ and believers is a
very vital element in Paul's system. Paul's aim was ever
to represent the relation between Christ and believers as of
the closest possible character. Hence the idea of mere

Appendix. — Lecture VII. — Note A. 441-

substitution could not content him; he must add to that
the idea of an objective identity, valid for God, acknowledged
in the divine government. And even that could not quite
satisfy the craving of his heart. Therefore he added still
another idea, that, viz., of " mystic union," or what we may
call subjective identity, according to which Christ is one,
not only by divine appointment and by outward lot, but in
conscious sympathy with men; and, on the other hand, men
are one with Him in the same manner, making His experi-
ence in death and resurrection their own. The former
aspect of this subjective identity, that of Christ with sinners,
is indeed not at all so prominent in Paul's Epistles as in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the sympathy of Christ
is one of the great outstanding ideas. Hints, however, are
not wanting, as in Rom. xv. 3, 4: " Even the Christ pleased
not Himself, but, as it is written, The reproaches of them
that reproached thee fell upon me; " and in Gal. vi. 2\
" Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of
Christ." The other aspect of the subjective identity be-
tween the Saviour and the saved, the sympathy of believers
with Christ, occupies a position of much greater prominence.
It is a favourite thought with Paul, that in believing in
Jesus men die along with Him, nay, not only die, but rise
and ascend to heaven. We find it in the earliest of the
four great Epistles, Gal. ii. 20: Xpidvo) dwedravpoo/tai, and
it recurs in 2 Cor. v. 14; the one text containing the idea
of co-dying, the other not only that, but also the correlate
idea of a co-resurrection. It thus appears that, to express
all that Christ crucified was to Paul's faith, we would
require to use three words. In that faith Christ the Vicar,
Christ the Representative (before God), and Christ the
Brother were blended together in indissoluble unity. In
this blending lies the peculiarity of Paul's doctrine, the
Glaubensmystik (faith-mysticism), which it is one of the
vhief merits of Pfleiderer's work to have duly signalized.
On the bearings of the doctrine of Christ's intimate rela-
tion to men, on the theory of the Atonement, the reader
may consult Dale's Lectures on the Atonement, delivered in
1875. The amount of light thrown on the subject is not
considerable, but the discussion is genial.

442 The Humiliation of Christ.

Note B. — Page 320.

The passage referred to is in his Commentai'-iiim in
Joannem, lib. ii. 107 (Ruperti Titiensis, Opera, vol. iii. p.
244, Migne's edition). Speaking of the meaning of John's
baptism in general, and of Christ's baptism by him in par-
ticular, Rupert says: Igitur ad agendum pro cuncto mundo
poenitentiam qua peccata cunctorum expiaret, Dominum
nostrum venisse dubium non est , . . Igitur causa, cur Jo-
annes venit in aqua baptizare et praedicare baptismum
poenitentiae, non est alia quam haec, ut ille Sanctus sanc-
torum, qui solus erat idoneus ferre poenitentiam, pro pec-
catis omnium electorum, adventum ejus ab origine mundi
expectantium, hac voce publica vocatus, accederet palam
ad coeleste sanctuarium, in conspectu Dei Patris et sanc-
torum angelorum, ubi eodem spiritu in columbae specie
super se descendente designaretur Pontifex, quo dudum in
Mariam superveniente, idem sanctus et immaculatus homo
conceptus est, non aliam habiturus quam offerret hostiam
nisi carnem propriam, quam statim quadraginta dierum et
quadraginta noctium jejunio, deinde omnibus poenitentiae
raodis afflictam, tandem pro peccatis nostris oblaturur erat
Deo Patri, " hostiam in odorem suavitatis " acceptam.
Rupert, in another place, gives as one reason of Christ's
baptism: Ut pro omnibus poenitentiam ipse agendam sus-
»:iiperet, quod et fecit continuo ut baptizatus est, jejunavit
•?nina quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, et deinde
mcessanter afflictus est tentationibus, persecutionibus, con-
tumeltis, opprobriis, flagellis, et tormento ultimae mortis
(//; quatuor Evang; cap. xiii. 4, vol. i. p. 1546, Migne).
Rupert, however, repudiated the idea of the Adoptianists,
that Christ, in being baptized, underwent regeneration
{De Divinis O0iciis, lib. iii. c. xxiv., nee quaerens remedium
renascendi sic voluit baptizari). He does, indeed, speak
of Jesus as, like Joshua, clothed with filthy garments, and
as being washed from pollution in the baptism of His pas-
ston; but the filthy garments are merely mortalitatem nos-
tram et passibilitatem propter quam sordidus, et contemp-
tibilia apparebat hominibus {In Joannem^ lib. xiii. vol. iii.
p. 795, Migne).

Appendix. — Lecture VII. — Note C. 443

Note C. — Page 340.

The doctrine that Christ suffered spiritual and eternal
death in essence, if not in accidents, was held both by the
Lutheran and by the Reformed dogmatists. It was a doc-
trine little known before the Reformation. Anselm, for
example, laid no stress upon the mental sufferings of Christ,
but simply on the fact that He died, gave His infinitely
precious life freely for man's redemption. There is not
much in patristic literature bearing on the subject, and
what there is, is differ,ent in tone from the statements to be
found in Protestant dogmatic literature. Cyril has one irn-
portant passage on Christ's exclamation on the cross, " My
God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ! " which may be
taken as a sample of the way in which the subject struck
the patristic mind. The passage occurs in Quod timis sit
Christits, p. 1325. Cyril teaches that Christ, in uttering
these words, spoke in the name of humanity. He was en-
titled to exclaim, " Why hast Thou forsaken me ! " because'
He was holy; and in uttering the cry of desertion He was*,
as it were, entreating God to regard men as holy in Him,
and to remove from them His anger. 'ExaXei yap ovk kcp

kavrdv ia.(xXXov, d.XX' kq) rj/.tcc's avTovi, rijv itapd vfarpo? Evuevsidv.
John of Damascus makes Christ partake of the curse
ex^riKcSi, as being ranked with us; not really in the sense
in which He took human nature, but only quasi. He dis-
tinguishes between two kinds of appropriation (oiHstoJdeii),
one physical and substantial ((pvdiH?) xai ov6ioJSi]<i), and one
personal and relative {TtpodooTtixri ncci 6x£rtm]). The curse
was appropriated in the latter way: rrfv ze xardpav nai xiiv
eyHaraXenpiv i)i.i<Sv, xai rd roiavra ovk ovta qyvdind, ovh avroi
ravra g5f ?/ yevo/ievoi (pHEtoodaro, dXXd ro r^jne'rEpov dvadexouEvoi
TtpodooTtov, Hal fiE^J r]^(av raddojiiEvo'). Toiovtov ds Idri, xai to ys-
vojuevoi vTtip rji.iwv Haidpa {De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii'. cap.
25). The doctrine in question may thus be regarded as a
Protestant elaboration — the theory of substitution carried
out to its last consequence, and one is almost inclined to
add, ad absurdiim. Statements of this doctrine equally
strong may be found both in Lutheran and in Reformed
theologians. The following are samples: —

444 ^^^ Hufniliation of Christ.

Heidegger, a Reformed divine (in loc. i8, Dc statu
Christi), teaches that Christ suffered " cruciatus <^raviores,
imo infernales, utpote peccato debitos, et sine quibus ex-
antlatis liberatio nostra a potestate Diaboli et inferni non .
constetisset " (cap. 34). The principle is stated in cap. 35,
that the Sponsor puts Himself in place of the guilty, and
must be taken as guilty, which He cannot be, " si non ob-
noxius sit eidem cum reo damnationi."

H. Alting {Probleinata Theolog. pars i. p. 179) says:
Dolores infernales, quales, impii omnes in aeternum patien-
tur anima est perpessus (Christus). ^He is discussing the
meaning of the words of the Creed, " He descended into
hell," and he interprets them, as Calvin, Beza, etc., as re-
ferring to the endurance of hell pains on the cross, saying
that it is not credible that the authors of the Creed would
have omitted the mental sufferings of Christ ! This is an
assertion similar to that of Calvin, that Elisha Avould doubt-
less instruct Naaman the Syrian in the truth of the gospel,
it being assumed that no man could be among the saved
(as Naaman was believed to be), unless he possessed a cer-
tain amount of doctrinal knowledge of the way of salvation.
(On this point, consult Dr. Rainy, CiinningJiam LcctureSy
Lect. H.) In another place, Alting states the same view
in connection with the doctrine that Christ offered a per-
fect satisfaction for sins. He specifies three things as en-
tering into a perfect satisfaction: i. The dignity of the
Person; 2. The gravity of the passion, in connection with
which it is taught that Christ suffered mors aeterna and ex
judicio, is taken as equivalent to aeterna damnatione, and
the curse as including both temporal and eternal death; 3.
The approbation of God. (^Loci communes^ vol. i. 164-167).

Wendeline expresses himself in a qualified manner.
To the question. An Deus revera Christum deseruerit .'' he
replies: Distinguenda desertio perpetua et totalis, qualis
est reproborum, — et temporalis, eaque non totalis sed par-
tialis tantum, et secundum quid. Fuit haec desertio non
paterni animi a dilecto filio, vel ad momentum alienatio,
sed gratiosae praesentiae occultatio et auxilii et liberationis
ex angustiis, quibus abjecti et derelicti a Deo solent urgeri,
dilatio (quoted by Schweitzer, Die Glaubenslehre der evan-

Appendix. — Lecture VIL — Note C. 445

gelisch-reformirten Kirche, vol. ii. p. 330). To the same
effect in Christiana Theologia, Wendeline says: Spiritualis
passionis inchoatio fuit amissiogaudii, quod fruitio et gratiae
plenitudo ei solebat adferre: accessit animae tristitia, pavor
et horror in dycovia, Matt. xxvi. 37-39. Consummatio fuit
in ilia patcis derelictione, qua omnem consolationis sensum
amisit ad tempus, Matt, xxvii. 46. De hac passione nostri
accipiunt dcscenstun ad iiiferos (lib. i. cap. xviii. p. 300). He
held, nevetheless, that Christ suffered eternal death as to
intensity, though not as to duration: Etiamsi non sensit
mortem aeternam quoad durationem, tamen quoad inten-
sionem (quoted by Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-
reformirteii Kirche, p. 340). To the same effect Heppe
quotes Rurmann. Turretine expresses himself in much the
same way as Wendeline.

The Lutheran theologians went even beyond the Re-
formed in the strong way in which they asserted the
doctrine.

HOLLAZ calls Christ, in the agony and passion, a specu-
lum irae, gratiae, virtutis, and decides that He sustained
infernal pains gtta siibstantiam non qua accidentia, and of
intensity equal to the pains of hell, not in the place of the
damned, but on Mount Olivet. Christus (he says in one
place) sustinuit poenam equipollentem aeternae poenae,
subivit quippe poenas infernales intensive quoad earum vim,
pondus ac substantiam, licet non extensive, quoad dura-
tionem ac subjectorum patientium accidentia. Sustinuit
cruciatuum extremitatem non aeternitatem {Examen theolo-
gicum, p. 742, conf p. 769).

QUENSTEDT goes SO far as to speak of Christ being the
object of God's extreme hatred: Non quidem Deus Pater
filio suo ratione personae suae irascebatur; sed quia peccata
totius mundi in se susceperat, non potuit non vi justitiae
suae vindicatricis eum extreme odisse, tanquam peccatorem
omnium quos sol unquam vidit, maximum {Excnrsns de
derelictione Christi thcol. did. pot. t. iii. p. 358; conf Stein-
meyer, Die Leidensgeschichte des Herrn, p. 205). In another
place he represents Christ as suffering exactly what sinners
had to suffer: Neque enim acceptavit Deijs aliquid in hac
satisfactione ex liberalitate, quod in se tale non esset, nee

;446 ^^^ Humiliatio7i of Christ.

.,de jure suo in exactione poenae nobis debitae et a sponsore
praestitae aliquid remisit, sed quod justitiae ejus rigor
postulabat, id etiam omne Christus in satisfactione sustinuit;
adeo ut ipsas etiam infernales poenas senserit, licet non in
inferno et in aeternum (iii. p. 246, quoted by Schmid, Die
Dogmatik der evangelisch-liithei'ischen Kirche, p. 302).

HUTTERUS speaks not less explicitly: Neque enim ideo
meritum Christi non est infiniti pretii quia Christus non
aeternam mortem subiit: quemadmodum enim inobedientiae
nostrae peccata sunt actu finita, reatu vero infinita: siquidem
impingunt in infinitam Dei justitiam: sic obedientia et mors
Christi fuit quidem actu finita quatenus certi temporis
periodo, diebus nimirum exinanitionis fuit circumscripta;
meriti vero ratione est infinita, siquidem ab infinita persona
profisciscitur, ipso nimirum unigenito filio Dei. Deinde
neque illud simpliciter verum est, quod execratio legis
tantum definienda sit per mortem aeternam. Hoc enim
verum si esset, perquam incommode apostolus execrationem
illam legis definivisset per illud Mosaicum (Deut. xxi. 23):
" Execrabilis omnis, qui pendet in ligno." Turn mors
aeterna non modo definitur perpetua continuatione sive
perpessione cruciatuum infernalium: sed et sensu dolorum
infernalium, cum abjectione sive desertione a Deo con-
juncto; ita ut qui vel ad momentum saltern hujusmodi
dolores sustinet, is aeternam mortem sensisse dici queat.
Quemadmodum sane Christus non ad momentum vel exi-
guum aliquod temporis spatium, sed per omne tempus
exinanitionis, sensum dolorum istorum infernalium vere
subiit, ita ut tandem exclamare necessum haberet; Deus
jneus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti .'' Quod vero pos-
teripre modo aeternam mortem non subiit, in causa fuit,
quod ipse innocens moriendo legi satisfeccrat i^Loci com-
munes, p. 427, quoted by Schmid, p. 303).

The subject to which the foregoing extracts relate formed
the subject of a bitter controversy in England, in which
Bishop Bilson took a prominent part, and to which he gave
rise by certain sermons which he preached at St. Paul's
Cross, on the redemption of sinners by Christ's blood {The
effect of certain Ser7nons preached at St. PauVs Cross, con-
cerning the fidl Redemption of Mankind by the Death and

Appendix. — Lecture VII. — Noic D. 447

Blood of Christ Jesus). The Bishop, in these sermons,
promulgated the idea that Christ did not endure spiritual
and eternal death, and insisted on the fact that such a view
was unknown to Scripture or the Fathers. Christ, he held,
suffered all that a holy Being could suffer, but no more;
and among the things which He could not suffer, were the
death of the soul, in the sense of a real separation from
God, and eternal death. These views met with animated
contradiction, which led Bilson to publish another work,
entitled The Survey of Christ's Sufferings for Maris Re-
demption; the latter work was published in 1603, the former
work being published in 1599. The controversy which
then raged made a great noise and gave rise to a con-
siderable literature, which is now almost entirely unknown,
and probably not worth reading, though Bilson's books
have an interest of their own. The echo of the controversy
seems to have reached Germany, for Cotta in his Second
.Dissertatio, de Statibus et Officio CJiristi, quoted at p. 351,
refers to Bilson's book, De descensu Christi ad inferos, pub-
lished at London 1604.

Note D. — Page 345.

Philippi quotes from Dannhauer, Catechisrnusmilch, the
following passage in which the exacting nature of Christ's
loveis, recognised: " Ein einiges Tropflein seines vergossenen
Blutes ware genugsam den unendlichen Zorn des himm-
lischen Vaters zu stillen, wo er nicht aus iiberfliessender
Iviebe alle sein Blut zumal vergeissen wollte " {Kirchliche
Glaubenslehre, Band iv. 2 Halfte, p. 96, note) [" a single
drop of His shed blood were enough to still the infinite
anger of the heavenly Father, if it were not His will in in-
finite love to shed all His blood at once"]. He also
quotes from Bernard's Sermons on the Canticles, a passage
in which is set forth, as a reason for the greatness of Christ's
sufferings, His desire to ensure gratitude by a signal display
of love. The words are: " Suffecisset ad redemptionem
orbis una pretiosissimi sanguinis gutta, sed data est copia,
ut in beneficii recordationem virtus nos diligentis clares-
ceret." This passage I have not been able to find; but the

44^ ^^^ Huiniliatio7t of Christ.

following, containing the same thought, is from Sermo xi.
7. The subject of the extract is " The Exinanition of the
Son of God in the Work of Redemption." Bernard says:
" Non simplex aut modica ilia exinanitio fuit: sed semet-
ipsum exinanivit usque ad carnem, ad mortem, ad crucem.
Quis digne pensit, quantae fuerit humilitatis, mansuetudinis
dignationis, dominum majestatis carne indui, mulctari morte,
turpari cruce ? Sed dicit aliquis: non valuit opus suum
reparare Creator absque ista difficultute ? Valuit, sed
maluit cum injuria sui, ne pessimum atque odiosissimum
vitium ingratitudinis occasionem ultra reperiret in homine.
Sane multum fatigationis assumpsit, quo multae dilectionis
hominem debitorem teneret: commoneretque gratiarun^
actionis difficultas redemptionis, quem minus esse devotum
fecerat conditionis facilitas. Quid enim dicebat homo
^reatus et ingratus ? Gratis quidem conditus sum, sed
nullo auctoris gravamine vel labore. Siquidem dixit, et
factus sum, quemadmodum et universa. Quid magnum est,
quamlibet magna in verbi facilitate donaveris ? Sic benefi-
cium creationis attenuans humana impietas ingratitudinis
materiam inde sumebat, unde amoris causam habere debu-
erat, idque ad excusationes in peccatis. Sed obstructum
est OS loquentium iniqua. Luce clarius patet quantum modo
pro te, O homo, dispendium fecit: de Domino servus, de
divite pauper, Caro de Verbo, et de Dei Filio hominis filius
fieri non despexit. Memento jam te, etsi de nihilo factum,
non tamen de nihilo redemptum. Sex diebus condidit
omnia, et te inter omnia. At vero per totos triginta annos
operatus est salutem tuam in medio terrae. O quantum
laboravit sustinens! Carnis necessitates, hostis tentationes,
nonne sibi crucis aggravavit ignominia, mortis cumulavit
horrore .'' Necessarie quidem. Sic, sic homines et jumenta
salvasti, Domine, quemadmodum multiplicasti misericor-
diam tuam Deus."

Note E. — Page 346.

In his miscellaneous remarks (chap, v., on " Satisfaction
for Sin." Works, ii. p. 574), Edwards thus deals with the
question, in what sense Christ suffered the wrath of God:
** Christ suffered the wrath of God for men's sins in such a

Appendix. — Ledtire VII. — Note E. 449

way as He was capable of, being an infinitely holy person,
who knew that God was not angry with Him personally,
knew that God did not hate Him, but infinitely loved Him.
The wicked in hell will suffer the wrath of God, as they
will have the sense, and knowledge, and sight of God's in-
finite displeasure towards them, and hatred of them. But
this was impossible in Jesus Christ. Christ, therefore, could
bear the wrath of God in no other but these two ways.

" I. In having a great and clear sight of the infinite
wrath of God against the sins of men, and the punishment
they had deserved. This it was most fit that He should
have at the time when He was suffering in their stead, and
paying their ransom to deliver them from that wrath and
punishment. That He might know what He did, that He
might act with full understanding at the time when He
made expiation, and paid a ransom for sinners to redeem
them from \\.q\\, first, it was requisite that at that time He
should have a clear sight of two things — viz. of the dread-
ful evil and odiousness of that sin that He suffered for, that
He might know how much it deserved punishment; that it
might be real and actual grace in Him, that He undertook
and suffered such things for those that were so unworthy
and so hateful, which it could not be, if He did not know
how unworthy they wxre. Secondly, it was requisite He
should have a clear sight of the dreadfulness of the punish-
ment that He suffered to deliver them from, otherwise He
would not know how great a benefit He vouchsafed them
in redeeming them from this punishment, and so it could
not be actual grace in Him to bestow so great a benefit
upon them; as, in the time that He bestowed. He would
not have known how much He bestowed; He would have
acted blindfold in giving so much." After showing that all
the circumstances of the passion tended to produce such a
clear view of both these things in Christ's mind, Edwards
goes on to remark that Christ suffered that which the
damned do not suffer, inasmuch as they have no clear idea
of the hateful nature of sin, such as a holy being has; and
to point out that Christ's love to the sinful was a source
of mental suffering through sympathy, another ingredient
different from the suffering of the lost; and then he arrives

45o The Humiliation of Christ.

at the second way in which Christ could endure the wrath
of God — viz. by enduring the effects of that wrath. "All
that He suffered was by the special ordering of God. There
was a very visible hand of God in letting men and devils
loose upon Him at such a rate, and in separating Him from
His own disciples. Thus it pleased the Father to bruise
Him and put Him to grief; God dealt with Him as if He
had been exceedingly angry with Him, and as though He
had been the object of His dreadful wrath. This made all
the sufferings of Christ the more terrible to Him, because
they were from the hand of His Father, whom He infinite-
ly loved, and whose infinite love He had had eternal experi-
ence of Besides, it was an effect of God's wrath that He
forsook Christ. . . . This was infinitely terrible to Christ.
Christ's knowledge of the glory of the Father, and His love
to the Father, and the sense and experience He had
had of the worth of the Father's love to Him, made the
withholding the pleasant ideas and manifestations of His
Father's love as terrible to Him as the sense and knowledge
of His hatred is to the damned, that have no knowledge
of God's excellency, no love to Him, nor any experience of
the infinite fulness of His love." Yet another element
Edwards reckons to have entered into the cup of wrath
put into Christ's hand by His Father: " It was a special fruit
of the wrath of God against our sins, that He let loose upon
Christ the devil, who has the power of death, is God's
executioner, and the roaring lion that devours the damned
in hell. Christ was given up to the devil as his captive for
a season. . . . He was let loose to torment the soul of
Christ with gloomy and dismal ideas. He probably did
his utmost to contribute to raise His ideas of the torments
of hell." One thing needs to be added to give a complete
view of Edwards' opinion — viz. that he thinks it probable
that as God ordained external circumstances to produce
the vivid ideas of the end of sin and the horrible nature of
its punishment spoken of under the first head, so " His own
influences were agreeable hereto. His spirit acting with His
providence to give Him a full view of these things." In this
statement Edwards does not profess to give express Scrip-
ture proof He merely says, " there is all reason to think."

INDEX.

Abbott, Dr., on Christ's miracles, 209;
on Christ's resurrection, 215.

Admonitio Neostadtiensis, or Chris-
tiana: on Lutheran distinction be-
tween various sorts of presence, 109;
on the fissure of the heated mass of
iron, no; when pubhshed, 118; title
of, 118; Written by Ursinus, 118; sum-
mary of its Chiistolop;ical statement,
1 18-12 1, geniina mens, 121 ; on tire
impersonalitas, 3S5.

Adoptianisni, 67, 68; Adoptianist doc-
trine concerning Christ's human nature
as fallen, 249.

Agnoetes, 69; Baur and Dorner on, 70.

Alcuin on voluntariness of Christ's suf-
ferings, 244.

Alford on Phil. ii. 5-9, 18.

Alting, Henry, on the physical infirmi-
ties of Christ, 264; on Christ's endur-
ance of hell pains, 444.

Ambrose, of Milan, on the kenosis, 168.

Anselm: Christ's sufferings not penal,
319; laid no stress on Christ's mental
sufferings, 443.

Antioch, theological school of, 49; The-
odore of Mopsuestia; Nestorius of
Constantinople, Theodoret of Cyrus,
members of, 49, views of, on Christol-
ogy, 49; on the title ©forofo?, 49;
held Christ's growth in knowledge,
ignorance, and experience of tempta-
tion to be real, 57; on priesthood of
Christ, 281, 283; affirmed moral de-
velopment of Christ, 281, 285.

Aphlhartodoketism, 68; Aphthartodo-
ketic doctrine as to Christ's human
nature, 258.

Apollinaris, character of, 40; his theory
of Christ's person, 40-45 ; theory criti-
cised, 45-48; death of, 48; Liebner on
ApoUinarism, 406.

Aquinas, Thomas, three new ideas in
bis Sumi/ia relating to Christology,

75; the Word incarnate in persona,
not in natiira, 75 ; Christ a recipient
of grace, 78; Christ the Head of the
Church, 80; Christ's body perfect from
the moment of conception, 81; Christ
had not the graces of faith and hope,
82 ; a co?iipfehetisor as well as a viator,
82; His soul possessed vision of all
things in God, 82; on the elements of
value in Christ's passion, 346; satis-
f actio super abimdaus, 346.
Arnold, Matthew, idea of God, 11; ridi-
cule of dogmas, 13; on moral Thera-
peutics, 214; leading idea of the Bible,
a Power making for righteousness,
333 ; his view compared with Ritschl's,

333-

Athanasius, on Apollinarian theory, 42;
on Apollinarian doctrine of redemp-
tion, 47.

Axioms,Christological, 22,23; additional
axioms, 36.

Bauer, onQuenstedt'sideaof God, i3;on
the Epistle to the Philippians, 24; on
Apollinarian theory, 44; on Agnoet-
ism, 70; Thomas Aquinas' idea of the
Incarnation, 77; on Aquin.as' doctrine
of Christ's headship, 80; on Christ's
claim to be Judge, 202, 203; three
types of Christology in the New Tes-
tament, 224; on .Schleiermacher's the-
ory of redemption, 317; on Luther's
Christological views in connection with
Supper controversy, 375; the Pauline
doctrine of the 6dp^, 432, 436.

Bernard, St. : Christ's sufferings a max-
imum to increase gratitude, 448.

Beyschlag: the use of the name Christ
for the pre-existent Logos, 17; advo-
cate of the Ideal Man theory, 223 ff. ;
on the titles Son of man and Son
of God, 225-234; the pre-existence,
234-

452

Ltdex.

Bilson, Bishop: controversy concerning
the nature of Christ's sufferings, 447.

Bodemeyer: Christ under wrath of God
during whole state of humihation,
338.

Brentz, John, 86; his Christology, 86;
to be in loco not an essential property
of body, 88; heaven not a place, 89;
Christ's glorified body without form,
90; ubiquity illocal, 92; local and per-
sonal ubiquity distinguished, 92; the
humanity of Christ on earth pos-
sessed divine majesty, 93; incarnation
and exahation identical — a twofold
humanity in Christ, 94; appearances
of Christ after resurrection econom-
ical, 94; dissembled majesty, 9^;
Brentian and Chemnitzian schools
contrasted as to exinanition, 102.

Bushnelj, Horace, love a vicarious prin-
ciple, 305; advocate of sympathy
theory of redemption, 307; latest views
of, 322; God's present dealings with
mankind not judicial, 324.

Calvin, on sense in which Christ suf-
fered divine wrath, 337.

Campbell, M'Leod, theory of atone-
ment, 319; Professor Park on, 320.

Chalcedon, Council of, 39; decree of,
concerning Christ's person, 39; con-
demned Eutychianism, 62; policy of
the Council, 62.

Chemnitz, Martin, 86; author of De
duabus naturis in Christ 0^ 96; his
Christological views expounded, 97;
his idea of the TZEpixoof)ii6ii, 98;
classification of idiomatic propositions,
98; potential omnipresence, \oo\prae-
sentia intiina and praesentia extima,
101 ; view of exinanition, 102; adopted
Ambrosian idea of a retractio of the
Logos, 103; did he hold the principle.
Logos lion extra carnein ? 104; helped
to prepare the Formula Concordiae,
105 ; Chemnitzian and Brentian schools
contrasted in reference to exinanition,
112.

Christology, Lutheran, 83; character-
ized, 84; two types of, Brentian and
Chemnitzian, 85; criticism of, 107-
115; applies its principle arbitrarily,
107; threatens the reality of Christ's
humanity, loS; leaves no room for
exinanition, iio; exinanition an effect
without a cause, 1 13; robs us of the
Incarnation, 114; relation to modern
speculative Christology, 115; con-
trasted with Reformed Christology.
115; relation to kenosis, i6g; con-
nection of, with Supp'jr controve! sy,

375; affinity with modern speculation
— Schneckenburger on, 380.

Christology, Reformed, 1 15; contrasted
with Lutheran, 116; a consistent
scheme in which all Reformed agreed,
117; criticism of, 120; its idea of the
itnion, 121; communication of char-
isms, 122; the divine nature partici-
pant in suffering, 123; wisdom and
virtue wrought in Christ's human
nature by the Logos through His own
Spirit, 125, 271; doctrine of exinani-
tion, 126; affected the divine nature
as occultation, 126; import of the
geinina mens — Schneckenburger on,
127; a double life, 127; does the ^i?w-
ina mens imply a double series of
parallel states of consciousness? 128;
antidoketic realism of Reformed Chris-
tology— Schneckenburger on, 131; re-
lation to kenosis, 170; Schweitzer on,
3S2; Reformed view of imperson-
alitas, 385.

Cotta (editor of Gerhard's Loci), on the
doctrine that Christ suffered infernal
pains, 351; refers to Bishop Bilson's
works, 447.

Crawford, Professor, D.D., on Archbish-
op M'Gee's views concerning the
natu'-e of Christ's sufferings, 319;
inductive method of inquiry in The
Atonement, 328; idea of a covenant,
value of, in solving difficulties, 331;
his classification of theories, 352.

Cyril, of Alexandria, on Apollinarian
doctrine of redemption, 47, 311; on
opinion of Nestorius on the tide
OsoroHoi, 50; on the kenosis, 51,
169; reign of physical law in Christ's
humanity, 54; Christ's intellectual
and moral growth only apparent, 55;
Cyrillian Christology monophysitic
in tendency, 58; affinity of, with
Lutheran Christology, 59; his view
of the kenosis compared with Bishop
Leo's, 66; Christ's death voluntary,
245; on priesthood of Christ, 281,
282; denied moral development of
Christ, 286; on the ignorance of
Christ (extracts from works), 368-374;
opposition to metamorphic views of
tlie Incarnation, 428; on the deser-
tion on the cross, 439.

Dale, on Christ suffering the wrath of
God, 347; on Christ's ultimate rela-
tion to men, 442.

Dannhauer: extent of Christ's suffer-
in js enhanced by His love, 447.

D;alh, eternal, did Christ suffer it ? 342;
Otiinii-iiis ot Ritsclil, Socinus, Van Mas-

Index.

4^3

tricht, and Gerhard on the point, 342,
343; Hodge (Dr. Charles) on, 343.

Delilzsch, his theory of Christ's person
(kenolic, Thoniasian type), 381.

Development, moral, implied in tempta-
tion, 273; places in which perfecting
predicated of Christ in the Epistle to
Hebrews, 274; in what senses used,
276; compatilile with sinlessness, 285;
conceived by analogy, 286; intel-
lectual development of Christ com-
plete before ministry began, 288:
moral development went on, 290.

Dods (M., the elder), on voluntariness
of Christ's death, 261; sermon by
M'Lagan on sympathy of Christ, 270.

Dorner, on rationalism, 6; on ApoUi-
narian theory, 43; on Cyril's Chris-
lology, 58; on Leo's letter to Flavian,
66; oil the patristic idea of person-
ality, 67; on Agnoetism, 70; on the
Christology of John of Damascus, 70;
Christological transubstantiation, 71;
Thomas Aquinas' idea of the Incar-
nation, 77; Lutheran Christology, 96;
Danaeus on Chemnitz, 99; on Lu-
theran Christology, 1 14; gradual Li-
carnation, 137, 170; on kenotic the-
ories, 167, 172, 176, 178, 179; on the
title Son of man, 231.

Double life of the Logos, 20; double
aspect of, held by ApoUinaris, 46;
theory of a double life not held by
Aquinas, 77; a double life involved
in Reformed theory according to
Schneckenburger, 127; theory of,
held by Mr. Hutton (R. H.), 129;
rejected by Gess, 151; asserted by
Martensen, 163; bearing of this idea
on Phil. li. 7, 189; use of this and
other hypotheses, 192; held by SchO-
berlein, 418.
Duns Scotus: held acceptilation theory
of atonement, 343.

Ebrard, on Heb. ii. 9 (joop/S ©sou
preferred to xd pin &£ov}, 33; Re-
formed doctrine as to relation of in-
carnation and exinanition, 116; his
theory of kenosis, 153-160; criticism
of, 182-187; stains humilis, in rela-
tion to the fall, 261-264; views on
fioptpi) &eov, 2^1; Mopq)?} SouXov,
365; on ovH dpTtayfiov i]Xr'j6azo,
366; extracts from prefaces to his
works,. 414, 415; solution of specula-
tive problems in Christology, 415; on
Christ's temperament, 430.

Edwards, President: a perfect confession
of sin an alternative method of satis-
fying for sin. 319, 320; in what sense

Christ suffered the wrath of God, 349;

449-

Epiphanius, account of ApoUinaris, 40;
on ApoUinarian theory, 43.

Ernesti, on Phil. ii. 6-9, 359, 363.

Euripides, Alcestis quoted (Apollo
banished trom heaven), 336.

Eutyches, opinions of, 61; relation of
Eutychianism to Cyril's views, 61;
description of, in Eranistes, 61; under
consideration of three Synods, 62;
condemned as a heresy at Council of
Chalcedon, 62.

Evvald: belongs to the school of senti-
mental naturalism, 209; his mode of
dealing with the resurrection of Christ,
212, 213.

Felix, of Urgelles, his views (Adop-
tianism) opposed by Alcuin, 244; held
Christ's human nature to be " fallen,"
249-251.

Formula Concordiae, 105; a compro-
mise, 106; failed to produce peace,
107; the Kryptic controversy be-
tween Giessen and Tubingen theo-
logians arose out of it, 107.

GAtJPP: theory of Christ's person (ken-
otic, Gessian type), 397.
Gerhard, "De Statu exinanilionis et
exaltationis, " 3; on Phil. ii. 5-9, 16;
on reciprocal co/itmiuiicatio idioina-
turn, 107; exina^iitio tvaA. ittcarnatio
distinct, 107; on Christ's omniscience,
III; Christ did not suffer eternal
death, 342.
Gess, his theory of kenosis, 145-153;
criticism of, 179; on sinlessness of
Christ, 149, 273; Godet on, 402.
Giessen -Tubingen controversy, 84, 104;
dispute about pracsentia iniima and
praesentia extiina. loi; krypsis and
kenosis, the respective war-cnes, 107;
Giessen and Tubingen theologians
neutralized each other, 113; account
of controversy, by Cotta, 377-380.
Godet, on John i. 17, 294; Chrisiological

views (kenotic, Gessian type), 402.
Goodwin : advocates kenolic theory

(Gessian), 413.
Gregory, ofNazianzum, on ApoUinarian

theory, 46.
Gregory, of Nyssa, Adv. Apollinarem,
43-46; on the drift of ApoUinaris'
treatise on the Incarnation, 44-

Hahn, theory of Christ's person (ke-
notic, Gessian type), 398.

Haweis: his views of Christ, 195; ex-
pounded and criticised, 218-223.

4^4

Index.

Hebrews, Epistle to the, doctrine of
humiliation, 25; view of salvation,
2g; dispuled reading; in chap. ii. 9,
32; places in which Christ is spoken
of as perfected, 274; that Christ not
ambitious to be a priest, taught, chap.
V. 7, 278; doctrine of Christ's priest-
hood, 2S3; principle of redemption
enunciated, chap. ii. 11, 301; a priest
must be able fXETpioitoJ]Elv , 303.
Heidegger, on the states, 2; distin-
guished between incarnation and ex-
inanition, 116; on the kenosis as
occultatio, 128; on Christ's endurance
of hell pain, 444.
Heidelberg Catechism: Christ suffered
the wrath of God throughout the
whole state of humiliation, 37.
Hilary, 2; view of kenosis, 168; denied
that Christ was subject to physical
infirmity, 240; apology for his views
by theologians, 242; voluntariness of
Christ's experience of infirmity, how
understood by, 246; mislead by oppo-
sition to Arianism, 247; view of
fiopq>r] &eov, 359.
Hodge, Dr. Archibald, on nature of

Christ's sufferings, 343, 347.

Hodge, Dr. Charles, onkenotic theories,

182; on Ebrard's theory, 190; on

nature of Christ's sufferings, 343, 348.

Hofinann, on ileb. ii. 11, 27; on did

ro TtdOr/zia rov Oava'rov (Heb. ii.

9), 30; belongs to kenotic school, 165;

on title Son of man, 230; on smless-

ness of Christ, 273; Christ under

divine wrath during whole state of

humiliation, 340; his Christological

views (kenotic), 407.

HoUaz, on the impersonalitas, 385 ; on

Christ's endurance of hell pains, 445.

Holsten, on Pauline doctrine of the

d«/3=, 432, 433.
Honioiisia, defined, 3; inferred from
Phil. ii. 5-9, 25; taught in Epistle to
the Hebrews, 27; Aquinas taught
views favourable to, 80; highly valued
in Reformed Christology, 129; em-
phasized by Adoptianists, 250.
Hulsius, on Christ's ignorance, etc.,
1 32; quoted by Schneckenburger, 132;
Ritschl's comments on the views of
Hulsius, as reported by Schnecken-
burger, 132.
Hutterus: Christ under the wrath of God
during whole state of humiliation,
33S; on Christ's endurance of hell
pains, 446.
Hutton, R. H., believes in possibility
of a double life of Logos, 129, 422;
on sinlessness of Christ, 273, 423.

Impersonality of Christ's humanity,
opinions of Reformed theologians on,
384, Schneckenburger's view, 386.

Incarnation, an exchange of divine form
for human form of existence (Phil. li.
5-7), 20; an incarnation indepen-
dent of fall taught by Ebrard, 184,
262, 416; by Liebner, 405.

Infirmities, sinless, of Christ, a source
of temptation, 237; Damascenus on,
238.

Irving,^ Edward, taught that Christ's
human -nature was "fallen," 254;
Irvingism criticised, 255-258.

John, of Damascus, 70; on the mono-
thelite controversy, 71; Christ's hu-
manity possessed personality, 71;
makes Christ's humanity lifeless, 71;
and Christ's temptations unreal, 72,
270; doctrine of it£pixoopr]6Li, 73;
his Christology resembles Cyril's and
the Lutheran, 73, 74; Christ not a
servant, 74; Logos in the humanity
like sunbeams in an oak, 74; senses
of the word ttaliire, 186; on the
physical infirmities of Christ, 238;
voluntariness of, 245.

Kai-INIS, theory of Christ's person (ke-
notic, Thomasian type), 394.

Keim, on Christ's sinlessness, 198; be-
longs to school of sentimental natur-
alism, 209; Strauss on, 211; his His-
tory of Christ characterized, 211; on
the miracles of healing, 213; on the
resurrection of Jesus, 215, on Christ's
person (Matt. xi. 27), 216; on the title
Son of man, 230; on Christ's tempei-
anient, 430.

Kenosis, 4; kenosis and skenosis, 8;
negative aspect of, 16; positive aspect,
20; vide Cyril, Lutheran, and Re-
formed Christologies, and Modern
Kenotic Theories, in this table; mod-
ern idea of, due to Zinzendorf, 137.

Kenotic theories (modern), 134; con-
nection with union movement in
Germany, 134, 135; relation to old
Lutheran and Reformed (Christologies,
135; humanistic tendency of modern
Christology in general, and of ke-
notic school in particular, 136; com-
mon idea of, 137; four leading types,
139; viiL' Thomasius, Gess, Ebrard,
Martensen; religious and scientific
aims of, 165; criticism of, 165; Dor-
ner on religious tendency of, 167;
kenotic and Socinian theories con^-
pared, 168; Ritschl on, 168; literature
of various types, 386-426.

Index.

455

KOnig, his theory of kenosis, 388;
anticipated Thomasius, 38S.

Le Blanc, chnracterized dispute about
ubiquity as a logomachy, 109; his
theses theologicae quoted to this
effect, 109; on Zanchius' view of
Christ's knowledge, 130.

Leo, Bishop of Rome, 63; pilot of the
church in the Nestorian and Euty-
chiau controversies, 63; his letter to
Flavian analysed, 63; criticism of,
64-67.

Liebner, his Christologie characterized,
7; on the ethical idea of God, 7; on
Pantheism and modern Theism, 1 1 ;
on the impeccability of Christ, 181,
272; views on i.iop<pi} Qeov, 362; on
Uopqjr) dovXov, 364; his Christo-
logical views (Gessian type), 403;
Incarnation irrespective of sin, 405;
on ApoUinarism, 407; on Christ's
temperament, 430.

Lightfoot, on ovk dpitayfiov rjyi]-
pazo, 365.

Ludemann, on the Pauline doctrine of
the 6dpi, 436, 437.

Luther, on the different modes in which
a thing can be in place, 92; his
Christological views before sacra-
mentarian controversy arose, 375.

MacDonnel: Christ's sufferings im-
properly called penal, 319.

MacGee, Archbishop: Christ's sufferings
not penal, 318.

M 'Lagan (Professor), on sympathy of
Christ, quoted, 270.

Mansel: idea of God, 12.

Martensen, on Schleiermacher's Chris-
tology, 14; theory of a double life of
the Logos, 20; a glory in Christ's
humiliation, 35; his theory of kenosis,
160-164; holds a double life of the
Logos, 163; his theory criticised, 188;
on sinlessness of Christ, 274; on
Christ's temperament, 430.

Martineau, James, on Christ's suffering
of divine wrath, 340, 341.

^faurice, on Mansel's apology for Chris-
tianity, 13; his theory of Atonement,
312.

Menken, Gottfried, of Bremen: Christ's
human nature "fallen," 251.

Meyer, on Phil. ii. 6-9, 365, 366; on
title Son of man, 367.

Monophysitism, 66, 67; internal disputes
about Christ's human nature, 257.

Monothelitism, 67, 68.

Muller, on sinless development of
Christ, 288.

Neander, on Cyril's view a& to Christ's

ignorance, 374.
Neslorius, patriarch of Constantinople,

belonged to Antioch school, 48;

Nestorian controversy, 48; Nestorian

theory of Christ's person, 48, 49;

does the theory involve a duality of

persons? 50; Christ underwent moral

development, 281.
Nitzsch, on kenotic theories, 192; his

view of redemption, 317; view of

).iopq)i} &EOV, 362.
NOsgen, on Ebrard's conception of the

person of Christ, 182.

Offices of Christ, priestly office when
begun, 280; double aspect of, 282;
Melchisedec priesthood, 283; apostolic
or prophetic office described, 294;
humiliations connected with, 301 sqq. ;
priestly office, 301 ; Christ's sufferings
both a qualification for office and
endured in performance of priestly
duty, 303; Christ as a priest, repre-
sentative; as a victim, substitute, 310.

Origen, on Heb. ii. 9 (Christ died for
every being, God excepted, ^cj/j^'f
(lisov), 2,2,.

Paulinus, of Aquileia: Christ's soul-
trouble voluntary, how ? 246.

Pecaut, on the sinlessness of Christ,
197, 198.

Peter the Lombard, his view of the
Incarnation, 75.

Pfleiderer, on Pauline doctrine of the
6dpi, 432 ff- ; Pauline doctrine of
righteousness, 439; faith mysticism,

441- .
Philippi, his satisfaction equation, 350;

quotations in, from Dannhauer and

Bernard on the satisf actio superabun-

daiis, 448.
Plato, description of Eros, 263.
Price, Dr., rationale of intercessory

prayer, 331.
Priesthood of Christ. See Offices of

Christ.
Prophetic office of Christ. See Offices

of Christ.

Quenstedt: idea of God, 12; Christ ,
the oliject of God's extreme hatred,
445-

Rainy, Principal, on limit of theological
knowledge, 193.

Redemption, by sample, 47; the patris-
tic view of redemption so named, 47,
253; taught by Menken and Irving,
254; Socinian theory of redemotion.

456

Index.

298 ; sympathy, theory of, 305 ; theory
of redempLion by sample or mystic
theory, advocated by Schleiermacher,
Menken, Irving, Maurice, and Rit-
schl, 311-313; Hilary and Cyril on
same llieory, 311; M-Leod Campbell's
theory, 319; Bushnell's latest theory,
322; wisdom of God in redemption,
326; governmental tlieory, 334; ac-
ceptilation theory, 343; elements on
which value of atonement depends,
344; theories of redemption classified,

352-355-

Reuss: no doctrine of humiliation in
the Gospel of John, 35; kenotic in
Christology after Gessian type, 401.

Richard of St. Victor, the humiliation
of Christ as great as Adam's pre-
sumption, 349.

Riehm, on Christ's humanity in rela-
tion to the fall, 259: limitation of
Christ's experience of temptation,
264; when did Christ's priesthood
begin, history of question, 284, 285.

Ritschl, on the views of Hulsius on
Justification, 132; the person of
Christ an insoluble problem, 133; on
kenotic theory, 168; Christianity an
ellipse with two foci, 292; his theory
of redemption. 313; ort'nodox theory
of redemption makes God a Pharisee,
329; views on imputation, 330; God's
dealings with mankind not judicial,
330; idea of retributive justice not
in Bible, 332; Christ, according to
orthodox theory, must suffer eternal
death, 340.

Rothe: theory of Christ's person, 223;
on sinlessness of Christ, 272.

Rupert of Duytz: Christ doing penance,
320, 321, 442.

Sadeel, on the illustration of heated
iron, 1 10; author of De veritate hum.
nat. Chris ti, 261; Christ's human
nature patible, 261.

Schleiermacher, on Phil. ii. 5-9, 15; his
Christology, 207; a failure as a com-
pi-omise, 209; on sinlessness of Christ,
272; his theory of redemption (mys-

^ tical = redemption by sample), 31 1,
330 ; on the title Son of man, 226.

Schmieder, theory of Christ's person
(kenotic, Gessian type), 400.

Schnecken burger, 4; his Christological
works, 5 ; on Thomasius. 5 ; on Luther-
an Christology, 114; connection be-
tween Luth. Christology and modern
speculative Christology, 115; Re-
form.ed idea of the union as a morally
mediated one, 126; import of the

gemma mens m the Reformed Chris-
tology, 127; antuloketic realism of
Retormed Christology, 130; on the
views of Hulsius concerning the
ignorance of Christ, 132; kenotic
theory destructive of the Trinity, 165 ;
re-statement of the Reformed theory,
170; on Thomasian theory, 174;
Reinhard's view of kenosis, 177; on
Luther's Christological views in their
relation to Supper controversy, 376;
on relation of Lutheran Christology to
modern speculation, 380; on Reformed
doctrine of impersoiialWas, 386.

SchOberlein, his Christological views
(kenolic), 418; \\o\Ai,2^ double life, \\'?>.

Schweitzer, on the meaning of the
gemina mens in Reformed Chris-
tology, 129, 382.

Shorter Catechism: the wrath of God
a particular item in Christ's humilia-
tion, 37.

Sinlessness of Christ, how secured, 269;
potiiit non peccare and non potuit
peccare, 269; various theories as to
sinlessness, 272; com.patible with mor-
al development, 285; integrity and
perfection distinct, 286.

Smyth (Newman, American), derives
theory of atonement from the idea of
love, 328.

Socinus Faustus, on priesthood of Christ,
281, 2S2, 434, 437, 438; his theory of
salvation, 298; according to orthodox
theory of atonement, Christ must suffer
eternal death, 341 ; dignity of sufferer
not to be taken into account, 344.

Son of man, meaning of the title as
used by Christ, 226-231.

Spencer, Herbert, unknovvableness of
God, 12.

Status humilis, Ebrard on, 262.

Strauss, on the Lutheran doctrine of the
states, 2 ; on the idea of God, 1 1 ; on
Phil. ii. 5-10, 15; on classification of
idiomatic propositions, 99; the Ab-
solute cannot perform special acts,
172,

Temperament: had Christ a particular

one ? 430.
Theodore, of Mopsuestia, on Heb. ii. 9

(the reading ^(H/j/S f;9£oi7 preferred),

33; Christological views of, 48 ff.
Theodoret, of Cyrus, opposed to .1

physical union of the natures, 48;

view of the kenosis in opposition to
- Cyril, 54.

Tholuck, on Phil. ii. 6-9, 359 ft.
Thomasius, founder of modern kenotic

school, 5; Christological presujipo-

Index.

457

sitions, 10; on Heppe's view of the
Brentian doctrine of ubiquity, 91;
account of Lutheran Clirislology, 96;
on Chemnitz' classification of idio-
matic propositions, 99; on genus
tapeinoticuni, taught by Tubingen
theologians, 108; on their doctrine of
omnipresence, 112; hiskenotic theory
expounded, 139-145; criticised, 17S;
on sinlessness of Christ, 273; account
of Hilary's views on jn op cprj &Sov,
359; his own view, 360; on Luther's
Chris'tological views, 375-

Triduum: belongs to the state of ex-
inanition, 351.

Ttibingen school, see Giessen: declared
abstinence from use of omniscience to
be impossible, 104; taught a genus
tapeinoticuiit., loS; later Tiibingen
theory of exinanition, 1 13.

Turretine, on the states, 2; wherein lay
the value of Christ's atonement, 344;
on Christ's endurance of hell pams,
445-

Ullmann, distinction between Unsund-
lichkeit and Siliidiosigkeit, 252; his
opinion of the advocates of the doc-
trine that Christ's human nature was
fallen, 256.

Van Mastricht, on Phil. ii. 5-9, 24;
idea of the hypostatic union, 122;

Christ suffered death in all senses,
temporal, spiritual, eternal, 342; on
the hnpersonalitas^ 383.

WElzsacKER: belongs to school of
sentimental naturalism, 209.

Wendeline, quoted by Ebrard, 186; on
Christ's experience of divine wrath, 444

Wrath of God, endured by Christ
during whole state of humiliation, 37,
337; Heidelberg and Westminster
Catechisms on, 37; Hutterus, Bode-
meyer, Hofmann, Van Oosterzee,
hold views of Heidelberg Catechism
on, 339 ff. ; Martineau's representation
of Christ under divine anger, 340;
Calvin on, 337; views of Cyril and
Anselm on, 443; views of Reformed
and Lutheran theologians on, 444 ff.

Zanchius, de Incarnatione, 3; on the
word dXXd (Phil. ii. T), 18; on the
kenosis as occultation of the divine
glory, 128; followed Aquinas in
reference to Christ's knowledge, 130;
on the kenosis, 187/ on the imperson-
alitas, 385.

Zinzendorf, father of modern kenosis,
137; his view of the Incarnation, 166;
Bengel on, 166; Liebner on his
Christology, 407; Plitt's account of
his Christology, 424.

Zuingli, effect of original sin, 334.

STANDARD RELIGIOUS WORKS.

IS THERE SALVATION AFTER DEATH?

A Treatise on the Gospel in the Intermediate State.

By E. D. Morris, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Lane Theological Sem-
inary, Cincinnati. Crown 8vo, cloth, $1.25. 2d Edition.

N. Y. Observer &a.ys : "The various views are stated with fairness and precision,
the specific passages of Scripture, bearing upon the subject, are carefully considered,
as well as the general te-.timony of Scripture in relation to it. We commend the
volume to ministers and teachers."

N. Y. Evangelist : " Clear in jnethod and cogent in arg-umetii, it is saturated
throughout luith the large literature of its subject, isfreefrovt all acerbity and un-
fairness, and is loyal to God's Word as the final test of Christian truth. It will settl
doubt and confirm faith."

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST

In its Physical, Ethical, and Official Aspects.

(Being the Sixth of the Cunningham Lectures.) By Rev. A. B. Bruce
D.D. Octavo, cloth, gilt top, $2.50. Uniform M'ith the samil
author's "Parabolic Teaching of Christ" and '■'Miraculous
Eleme7tt in the Gospels."

" These lectures are luetl worthy of the name they bear, and of their precursors
in the series ; and the book in which they are published, with ample notes and refer-
ences, -will be valuable to theologians, supplying a want in the literature of the subject,
and containing many fruitful germs of thought. Dr. Bruce' s style is uniformly
clear and z'igorous, and this book has the rare advantage of being at once stimulating
and satisfying to the mind in a liigh degree. He has given us a book that will really
advance the theological understanding of the great triith that forms its subject,''' —
British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

The English Church/nan says : "The title of the book gives but a faint concep-
tion of the value and wealth of its contents Dr. Bruce's work is really one

of exceptional value ; and no one can read it without perceptible gain in theological
knowledge,"

BY REV. DR. A. B. BRUCE.

THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE,

Or, PASSAGES OUT OF THE GOSPELS,
Exhibiting the twelve Disciples of Jesus under Discipline for the Apostle-
ship. Uniform with same Author's "The Nzmiiliaiion of Christ,''
&c. Octavo, nearly 600 pages, cloth, gilt top, $2.50.

" A really great book on an Important, large, and attractive subject — a book full of
loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian faith and
practice." — British and Foreign Evangelical Reviezu.

" Full of suggestion and savour. It should be the companion of the minister, for the
theme is particularly related to himself, and he would find it a very pleasant and profit-
able companion." — Sfiurgeon's Siuord and Trowel.

" A more wise, scholarly, and more helpful work has not been published for many
years past." — IVesleyan Magazine.

Copies sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price, by

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.
4

REV. DR. ALEXANDER BRUCE'S WORKS.

THE MIRACULOUS ELEMEHT IN THE GOSPELS.

By Alexander Balmain Bruce, D.D., Author of "The Parabolic.

Teaching of Christ." 8vo, cloth. $2.50.

This work, though constructed on a different method, may be regarded as a com-
panion to my work on The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, published a few years
ago. In the Fifth and Sixth Lectures I have considered from my point of view, at
considerable length, a large number of the miraculous narratives, and made observa-
tions on nearly the whole of the narratives of this character contained in the Gospels.
My object in these portions of the work is not to expound homiletically the whole
narrative in which a miracle is recorded, but to inquire whether the event recorded be
indeed a miracle.

" It -will take rank di oncf aiHong the Standard treatises upon its always impor-
tant and engrossi7ig theine. It is an elaborate study — the frziit of wide-reaching and
frofound researcli and patient reflection. The result of tJiese studies is that the
volume is a poiverful defense of tlie miracles as an esse?itial feature of the religion of
Christ. It is a cause of congratulation to the wliole Christian public that so vahiable
course of lectures has been given to the whole world in so available shape" — Boston

CONGREGATIONALIST.

" An exhaustive discussion of the New Testament Miracles. The topics are
candidly, lucidly, and very ably considered. The volume is a rich addition to our
apologetic literature, which every Biblical studett will desire to add to his library."—
Zion's Herald.

The Parabolic Teaching of Christ.

A Systematic and Critical Study of the Parables of our Lord. By Rev.
Prof. A. B. Bruce, D.D. i vol., 8vo, cloth, 527 pp. Price, $2.50.

"A work which will at once take its place as a classic on the Parables of our Sa-
viour. No minister should think of doing without it," — American Presbyterian Review.

American Literary Churcliman says : " We recommend this book with the most
confident earnestness. It is a book to be bought and kept; it has both depth and
breadth and minute accuracy ; it has a living sympathy with the teaching of the Para-
bles and with the spirit of the Master."

ENGLISH NOTICES.

"Prof. Bruce brings to his task the learning and the liberal and finely sympathetic
spirit which are the best gifts of an expositor of Scripture. His treatment of his subject
is vigorous and original, and he avoids the capital mistake of overlaying his exegesis
with a mass of other men's views." — Spectator.

"The studies of the Parables are thorough, scholarly, suggestive and practical.
Fullness of discussion, reverence of treatment, and sobriety of judgment, mainly char»
acterize this work." — Christian World.

"Each Parable is most thoughtfully worked out, and much new light is thus thrown
on the difficulties which surround many of these beautiful and suggestive examples of
Divine teaching." — Clergymen's Magazine.

"This volume has only to be known to be welcomed, not by students alone, but by
all earnest students oi Christ's oracles. On no subject has Dr. Bruce spoken more
wisely than on the question why Jesus spoke in parables. The one end the author sets
before himself is, to find out what our Lord really meant. And this he does with a
clearness and fullness worthy of all praise. Familiar aS we are with SOme oT

the best and most popular works on the Parables, we do not know any to
which we could look for so much aid in our search after the very meaning
which Christ would nave us find in His -^ordiS.^^—Nonconfortnisi.

Copies sent by mail, postpaid, on receipt of price.

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.
5

A DICTSONARY OF RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS,

CLASSIFIED GEMS OF THOUGHT

FROM THE GREAT WRITERS AND PREACHERS OF ALL AGES.

In convenient form for use as a Dictionary of Ready Reference on
Religious Subjects. Edited by Rev. F. B. Proctor, supervised
in proof by Principal Henry Wage. D.D., both of King's College,
London. Royal octavo volume, 850 pages, including a full index of
32 pages. Strongly bound in cloth, $5.50 ; in half morocco, $6.50.

A Ready Means of Comparing Views (Critical
and Suggestive) with the Great Writers of All
Ages. Treating Upward of 3,000 Subjects.

OCCUPYING A FIELD COVERED BY NO OTHER PUBLICATION.

A thoroughly critical and suggestive classification of the best religious
ihoughl — ancient and modern — including also, as a special feature, pas-
sages remarkable for lucidity in the treatment of difficult themes.

As a ready means of comparing views with eminent writers and
preachers on a wide range of subjects, it occupies a field entirety its own.
Upzuard of 3,000 subjects {in alphabetical order) appear in the list of
titles, and among the large number of authorities quoted are many not
readily accessible in other forms.

The plan adopted in the preparation of the work adds much to its
utility itt securing jtist the ends desired. Each imporiaiit subject receives
ca7-eful analysis at the hands of the author, and the citations are so placed
as to develop each phase of the subject separately. In this way the best
thought of many zvriters is applied directly to the elucidation of the great
problems of the day, and in a form to be available for immediate use.

ENGLISH NOTICES OF THIS WORK.

"Incomparably one of the most useful books of the kind recently published."
—Noncorformist.

"One of the best of the many collections of choice literary extracts now in circula-
tion. It is not a book of anecdotes, but a casket filled with gems of thought." — Prim-
itive ISIethodist.

" It contains innumerable quotations from authors and divines of all ages. . . .
To preachers whose libraries are limited, or who are too much occupied for extensive
readme, these 'Gems' will prove invaluable." — Christian World Pulpit.

•'This look of thoughts and pregnant sayings asks for a pi ice as a book of refer-
ence, which mav be opened anywhere .and at any time, that it may furnish a train of
thought, and he'lpto elucidate and interpret that Word which is able to make us wise
lUito salvation. We think it will not ask in vain." — The Rock,

" No one supplied with ' Gems of Thought' should be guilty of a dry sermon."—
Ecclestastical Gazette.

"Ministers are sure to value it, and find it of great service in their work." — The
Freeman. ,

" Entitled to very high praise, . . . The selections are for the most part admir-
able. . . . It is likely to prove one of the most useful volumes that has been issued
from the press for some time." — The Commonwealth.

CoMes sent by mail, postpaid, on receipt of price.

CHOICE STANDARD WORKS.

■ "€

A NEW AND HANDSOME LIBKAET EDITION

MILMAN'S COMPLETE WORKS,

IVi^/i Table of Contents and Full hidexes,

IN 8 VOLS., CROWN 8V0, CLOTH.

PRICE, $12.00 PER SET, (Reduced from $24.50.

(Bound ill Half Calf extra, $23.00 fer set.)

This Edition of Milman's Works, Thoroughly
Revised and Corrected, Comprises

The History of the Jews, 2 Vols.

The History of Christianity, 2 Vols.

History of Latin Christianity, 4 Vols.

Dr. Milman has won lasting popularity as a historian by his three
great works, History of the Jews, History of Christianity, and
History of Latin Christianity. These works link on to each
other, and bring the narrative down from the beginning of all history to
the middle period of the modern era. They are the work of the scholar,
a conscientious student, and a Christian philosopher. Dr. Milman
prepared this new edition so as to give it the benefit of the results of
more recent research. In the notes, and in detached appendices to the
chapters, a variety of very important questions are critically discussed.

The author is noted for his calm and rigid impartiality, his fearless
exposure of the bad and appreciation of the good, both in institutions
and men, and his aim throughout, to utter the truth always in charity.
The best authorities on all events narrated have been studiously sifted
and their results given in a style remarkable for its clearness, force an<?
animation.

MILMAN'S WORKS HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACE AMONG
THE APPROVED CLASSICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The
general accuracy of his statements, the canclcr ot his criticisms and
the breadth of his charity are everywhere apparent in his writings.
His search at all times seems to have been for truth, and that which
he finds he states with simple clearness and with faarlsss honesty.
HIS WORKS ARE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY A3
VALUABLE AS THE VOLUMES OF G BBON ARE IN SECULAR
HISTORY. THEY DESERVE A PLACE IN EVERY LIBRARY IN
THE LAND. THIS NEW EDITION, in 8 vols., contains AN AVERAGE
OF OVER 900 PAGES pec volume. PRICE, $12.00 PER SET«
(Formerly published in 14 vols, at $24.50 )

Sent on receipt of price, charges prepaid, by

hi C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.

NEW AND IMPORTANT HOMILETIO WORK.

Now ready 2 F(?A.— Genesis to 2d Samuel, Volume I.,
and Kings to Psalm LXXVI, Volume II.

THE SERMON BIBLE-

EMBRACING THE WHOLE OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.

This Series of Volumes will give in convenient form the
essence of the best homiletic literature of this generation. As
yet, the preacher desirous cf knowing the best that has been
said en a text has had nothing to turn to but a very meagre
and inadequate Homiletical Index. In this he is often referred
to obsolete or second-rate works, while he misses references to
the best sources. The new Sermon Bible will take account of
the best and greatest preachers, and will be compiled from
manuscript reports and fugitive periodical sources as well as
from books. Many of the best sermons preached by eminent
men are never printed in book form. It will thus contain much
that will be new to its readers.

UNDER EVERY TEXT WILL BE GIVEN:—

1. Outlines of important sermons by eminent preachers existing only

in manuscript or periodicals, and thus inaccessible.

2. Less full outlines of sermons which have appeared in volumes 7vhich

are not well known or easily obtained.
J. References to or very brief outlines of sermons 7vhich appear in

popular volumes such as are likely to be in a preacher's library.
4. Full references to theological treatises^ commentaries, etc., where any

help is given to the elucidation of the text.

Thus the preacher, having chosen his text, has only to refer to the Sermon
Bible, to find some of the best outlmes and suggestions on it and full refer-
ences to all the helps available.

The range of books consulted will be far wider than in any Homileticai
Index— we cannot say than in any work of the kind, because no work of the
kind is in existence.

The Series will be under the general supervision of the Editor of the
" Clerical Library," who will be assisted by specialists in each department.

' It will extend to 12 vols., of about 500 pages, with 24 blank pages for
incjuorandum notes at end of each vol. Price $1.50 each, and will be pub-
lished at the rate of at least two vols, a year.

Great care will be taken to observe due proportion in the volumes — the
space given to each book of the Bible depending on the number of sermons
that have been preached from it.

As the volumes will be indispensable to every preacher, and as they
will be in constant use, they will be issued well bound, and at an exceedingly
moderate price when the amount of matter is considered.

C^ies sent, postpaid, on receipt of price, by

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, N. Y.

THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE,

Edited by Rev. W. R, Nicoll, Editor London Expositor.

This series consists of Expository Lectures on ALL THE BOOKS
OF THE BIBLE by the foremost Preachers and Theologians of the
day. While regard is had up to the latest results of Scholarship, the
volumes v/ill be essentially popular, and adapted to general readers quite
as much as to the clergy. Six volumes published a year, in large crown
Svo volumes of about 450 pages each, strongly bound. Price per vol. S1.50,

Six Volumes for 1889.

THE PASTORAIi EPISTLES. By Rev. Alexander Plummer,

D. D.
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. Vol. i (chapters 1-39). By Rev. George

Adam Smith.
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. By Rev. Prof. G. G.

FiNDLAY.

THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. By Rt. Rev. W. Alexander,

D. D.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. By Rev. Prof. William Mil-

LIGAN.

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ry Rev.
Marcus Dods, D. D.

Six Volumes Published in 1888.

COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON. By Rev. Alex. Maclaren, D.D.

ST. MARK. By Rev. G. A. Ghadwick, D. D.

GENESIS. By Rev. Marcus Dods, D. D.

I. AND II. SAMUEL. By Rev. Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D. D.

2 vols.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Rev. Principal T. C.

Edwards, D. D.

A complete descriptive circular {sc7it on application) of this series,
with critical notices of the first six volumes published, and names of the
Expositors engaged on the other Books of the Bible, viz. : Rev. Prof. B.
B. WARFIELD, of Princeton Theological Seminary ; Rev. Dr. J.
MUNRO GIBSON (formerly of Chicago) ; Rev. Prof. T. K. CIIEYNE ;
Pev. Prof .J. M. FULLER, Y.^\\.oxoi Speakers' Commentary; Rt Rev. Dr.
A. BARRY; Rev. C. G. MOULE, of Gambridge; Rev. Principal RAINY,
D. D.; Rev. ALEX. MACLAREN, D. D., etc., etc.

Copies sent by mail, postpaid, on receipt of price .

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.

^^ynrvt iVi- 1 nihii

I'liVrtliifiiTi-lrTiriiilfi

•^rH

•H

•H T3
•H

■P
•H

Si O
•H

^ °

-P

(0
Qi

ct5
•H

•H

0) EH

•H
-P

aj Cm
•H Ch
H O
•H

a Ti

cd
o
H

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. limited

;;v\^5-S««<«v>^xV\^\\VCS^tvj,xN5;;;,jj>^^,:^^

f-i>Nvx«v^-.\->r;:^Jr.-j;CT7S^SS»-S\^!S\\\^^

■S^\#^'^v^''^'''^'-^-^'^'"'^'^>i^^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The humiliation of Christ in its physical, ethical, and official aspects"

See other formats